They're clearly an industry plant trying to sabotage the movement.

This, I can't help but to think this is a trap. It sounds noble sure, but it would cause the movement to start spinning too many plates at once. Stop Killing Games can focus on other industry problems later when it has established more of a presence. If it starts caving into demands to go into several other directions before it has its foot in the door it will crumble. I am not saying we throw workers under the bus, I'm saying we don't try to help them before we are able to help ourselves.

> Stop Killing Games can focus on other industry problems later when it has established more of a presence. Or just not? SKG is a consumer rights and art preservation movement, not a labor rights movement. None of the people who signed up for SKG should expect it to pivot to something else once the stated goal is achieved, and especially not to legitimise itself as an organisation *beyond* its stated mission off the back of the support for it. I guarantee you without a shadow of a doubt that a "Stop firing devs" would not have gone anywhere close to this level of support. Moreover, it's basically impossible to unionize any kind of digital asset production work, because with modern internet connections locations are a non-issue, and you can't unionize across vastly different countries and economies. Too many people are willing to work in games while being paid breadcrumbs to even make a union possible, even without the outsourcing issue, and frankly if you are that willing to get fucked why should anyone stand in your way?

I want a pony.

The way we bought it just requires the server code to be available to run, if does not require any specific company running servers. And running servers is not a suable offense.

I didn't say it was, but a lot of people are wanting offline access. Point is it's not inherently clear with one vision what SKG is. Just like Brexit and any number of dumb things it's been marketed in a shotgun approach to get as many people on board as possible and coasting on a "well the EU politicians will just figure out what we want"

The problem with Brexit not the lack of clarity, it was that it was a fundamentally dumb idea motivated but dumbness. It was a bunch of people who blamed every problem on the EU for no sound reason and thus they supported a stupid self harming policy. This is a situation where the policy is fundamentally sound, it just needs some clarity around implementation details. This is how government is supposed to work.

True, but it only got so popular because they had convinced both groups, hard and soft. I have no idea how they managed to convince people that Northern Ireland wouldn't be an issue. But back to the real point. Yeah, I thought GDPR would be good, but in practice it's not changed the cookie/tracking landscape at all. Most places you'd have to send a letter to to get them to removed your data, and most would probably not be able to comply. Meanwhile we now have options that are subscribe (meaning they have legitimate reason to track and monitor you) or accept their ads and tracking cookies. I think you have too much faith in them.

The GDPR is good and has absolutely changed how things are done. I've been involved with multiple companies having to change their European data practices because of it. I don't know why you have so little faith in the EU when it's an actually functioning government that is passing new consumer protection legislation.

Perhaps a little dramatic, but have you heard the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" "things have changed" the makers of GDPR admitted it didn't really accomplish what they wanted The EU does great things, but this is an area plagued with issues. Like timed licences expiring, meaning even the devs/publishers can't continue distributing the game, copyright and IP ownership being unclear who owns it after companies dissolve, leadership leaves or collaborations end. Not to mention the law still hasn't really caught up over what it means to distribute a game. Does hosting a download for the client side of a game count as distribution? What happens if a company is obligated to stop distribution, but obligated to provide the community a way to keep playing? What if a member of leadership keeps providing a way to download the client-side, it might not contain copyright content, but maybe the server side does, which is actually distribution, is either? We live in a world where 'I want to remaster and I'm willing to buy the licenses and IP" can end with nothing happening because it's too complicated. So forgive me if "We want to continue playing games we bought =(" feels like too vague a direction for something this complicated and I can see far more concepts of terrible consequences for bad implementations than just having to click a popup box on every single website I visit and needing a VPN to visit the sites that try to block EU traffic because they don't want to have to adhere to GDPR.