It is at 361,826 out of 1,000,000 signatures with the remaining trickle after the initial spike nowhere near the pace needed to hit the mark before the 31st of July 2025.

(https://www.reddit.com/r/StopKillingGames/comments/1flaevi/let_me_put_the_current_campaign_progress_into_a/)

I interpret the state of Ross Scott’s SKG campaign like this:
It’s pretty clear that democratically speaking, we do not object to companies arbitrarily removing access to purchased video games. Only a minority objects to it.

While it will stay up and get more signatures, there will ultimately be no follow-through to this campaign. The reality is that it’s not politically sound, it’s not built on a foundation of a real public desire for change. In other words, voters don’t want it. You might, but most of your family and friends don’t want it.

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyzEnglish
    29·
    2 months ago

    It’s pretty clear that democratically speaking, we do not object to companies arbitrarily removing access to purchased video games. Only a minority objects to it.

    It’s more like “people don’t know about the issue, or how it affects them, as they’re busier with their everyday lives”. This happens a fair bit.

    Additionally, the graph shows that the movement had huge fervour at the start but then lost steam. So:

    • Is the movement well organised?
    • Are there people actively asking others for new signatures?
    • Is the movement able to recruit more people to proselytise it?
    • Which areas of the EU have proportionally less signatures? And why?
    • What’s the public image of the movement? And what about the cause itself? (People do realise that legislation to not kill games makes it easier to pass legislation to not screw with customer goods after they were bought, right?)
    • What caused that peak in the 7th of September, and how to replicate it on purpose?

    EDIT: can someone convince PewDiePie to at least talk about the campaign?