What's the faster path to political power: earning the trust of millions of voters (who believes social media religiously), or earning the support of a few oligarchs who control the social media platforms those voters get their information from?
I'm dating myself with this, but I remember a time where communication over the internet was niche enough [read: required enough effort] that not everyone was using it and so governments didn't spend their time and money astroturfing online.
I would say there is a difference in media and mass media regarding use for propaganda purposes. What you remember is internet beind a “media”, and now its mass media
Yeah but that just proves the point. Not enough people were using it. You know what they were using? Their TV's and radios. You know what was heavily a tool of mass manipulation? Those TVs and radios.
One could argue mass media as an indocrination and propaganda tool dates way back to invention of the printing press around 1440. Internet is just another form. Brain chips are probably next. /s
The media isn't just the Internet, the Internet is just the new popular media. Before that it was newspapers, radios, TVs etc. I bet no matter how old you are the popular/mainstream media of your youth was held hostage by oligarchs
Now we have things like the media lobbied "agency privilege" in Germany, which means you can publish any given bs as long as it was part of a press agency release without fearing repercussions for it being a false report.
This allows for very cheap automated publishing of whatever a press agency puts out as factual news, without even a human journalist involved, let alone one that knows anything about the matter reported.
I'm assuming the same or similar is in place all over the western world.
Not to this level. Not insidious and in everything. Not designed to suck you in and create echo chambers. Not designed to keep you ignorant of anything but your orange Messiah. (I know he's specific to the US but it still gets my point across even if you aren't from the US.)
You need to control the keys to power in order to have power. And those keys to power need to control their own keys to power, etc. etc. Making people happy = taking power away from the keys. You make those keys unhappy, and they will put someone else in your place. - an idea from CGP Grey on YT.
Yeah, corruption is unavoidable. No matter what system we use to govern through thousands of years of civilization, one thing that remains unchanged is corruption always exist in every single one of them. It's almost like it's a part of human nature at this point
It’s also been shown that power corrupts well intentioned people, I don’t know if the people at the top are the problem or rather the systems of power that be create the unethical
The core problem is that society itself is unnatural (requiring adherence to rules that contradict animal nature to function) and animal nature leans towards corruption.
After all, corruption is literally just "doing things to benefit yourself at the expense of others." That's survival in nature 101. You horde resources for your small tribe while neglecting competing tribes from having access to those resources.
Brains of social animals really struggle to cope with groups larger than 100-150 individuals (save those with hive minds). Hell, most struggle to cooperate with other groups of the same species.
We were never biologically evolved to group up into tribes of millions, nor to view the entire human race as our collective tribe. Which is why "power corrupts"; everyone is still an animal and our instincts telling us to prioritize ourself & family over the other groups of people in our nation are simply too strong for most people to overcome.
Thus leading to a cycle of dismantling those in power when they horde too much and it starts over again. A species doomed from the beginning with its propensity for violence and self interest. It seems to be no solution to the problem. But also you say most, I don’t think the entirety of our species is the same. Is there hope for humanity to overcome that? I don’t know. Intellectually, no; but my heart hopes for it.
Right. We're stuck in a cycle that can't be broken, at least not by homo sapiens.
Maybe some day we'll evolve into a new form of human that won't have the same struggles, but no one alive or related to anyone alive is going to see the end of corruption & war. They're byproducts of animal nature that, as far as we're aware, no species has been able to solve. As you put it, there very well may not be a possible solution at all. It may just be something we'll have to deal with until the end of life in the universe.
They used to be afraid of the people because the people could fight them, win and behead them. And people did so eagerly
There are very few countries in which people have a chance in a war against the cops and army and all of them built such good lives for their people that they don't feel like risking their lives just to put one deranged idiot in place of another deranged idiot
I'd prefer Shadowrun. If we're going to be ruled by megalomaniacal greedy creatures who run corporations can they at least be the fire breathing variety?
I'd prefer Shadowrun. If we're going to be ruled by megalomaniacal greedy creatures who run corporations can they at least be the fire breathing variety?
That and magic regularly appears in the poor, so it's not like chrome (and thus money) is the only way to go.
They just have more influence than the average person.
If they truly ruled the governments, none of this would've even been considered, which is what they'd have preferred.
Government is still our best (and only) defense against corporate rule, but we need to start fighting to take that shit back because they're dangerously close to eliminating it completely.
Lobbying is just the legal side of corruption.
When you are a citizen, any kind of lobby is corruption (I have anti corruption meeting each year with my work), but when you are a politic 😏
Yeah and a multi billion dollar corporation can buy a hell of a lot more "advocacy" than any individual, or many, many individuals put together. It's practically corruption.
It does not prove any corruption, politiicians always meet both parties of any situation. Sometimes they side with business while being totally impartial. A lot of politicians are ex-businessman and will have a business first mentality without any bribe.
We don't need to be cynical about it we just need to keep on fighting and continue to propose solutions to politicians.
It is when it's behind closed doors. If the corporation is able to have a private conversation with lawmakers and the people don't even know what was said or if it was even honest (the amount of dishonesty from opponents over what Stop Killing Games wants to achieve is absolutely insane) then how can the people even hope to try to provide counterpoints or explain the dishonesty to bring truth to light.
They get to make their points without counter, we don't. If not corruption, why corruption shaped?
It is a figure of speech. Our stuff is made public for us all to know about and discuss. We don't know the other side and it's not going to be made public.
I am voting with my wallet, I have been for years. The problem is that I'm being outvoted to the tune of millions of euros a year by 'people' (and I'm using that term lightly here) who are genuinely too stupid and too loyal to THEIR BRAND to realize we don't have to live in a world like this.
Then WTF are you voting with your wallet for? What brand are people so loyal to that has you so pissed off? What a pathetic attempt to swerve away your attempt to dehumanized people for their choice of entertainment.
By the way, you vote for things, not against them. If you buy the games you like, then you'll get more of them. Apparently, that's not enough for you. You can't handle the existence of games that are not made for you, and that makes you angry.
I do, and then someone I know just buys the newest FIFA or Madden shovelware and just look at me as if I just said the sky is green when I ask why they buy the same shovelware game every year. They literally can't even explain why they do it past 'Well, I want the newest one.'
Voting with your wallet is important and I have been doing that for decades. But here's the thing. It only works when the product isn't worth the price even on paper. 99% of their customers don't even understand what Stop Killing Games is, let alone heard about it. They buy the game, play it a few times and never think about it again even if it dies. The few who do, probably just swear a few times and forget about it. And the few that don't, might care.
And it does prove corruption, because they lied in the statement. They said thing that aren't true. They told consumers to do things that have been proven to not work. They told the consumers to go through their countries processes, which have been proven to not be sure how to deal with it. Their decision is straight up based on falsehoods and only benefits companies doing the scamming.
So either it's corruption or incompetence, but from the perspective of the people, there is no difference. We get fucked just the same.
Considering he has no source you can literally make it up. Also pretty much every game company was against this movement. You don’t have to single out anyone of them.
Doesn't necessarily mean they paid off the MPs, more likely is they met with the CEO, went "is this viable" the CEO went "lol no, and we'd fight this in court" (whether true or not) and the MPs went "k"
Why corruption? Should they not get the perspective of what it would cost to force a company to comply before making a decision?
The EU has a pretty good track record of making consumer-friendly decisions. If they determined the cost of games would need to increase to support this risk to the point that it wasn't consumer-friendly, then I can't really blame them. This was always a complicated topic with no easy answers - especially if the law was to apply universally to indie devs as well as AAA...
No actually, EU institutions are not particularly corrupt, in fact you should have more respect for the EU even if they don't pass your stupid law.
SKG was just a ridiculously formulated policy idea and every time I or someone else raised the point we were laughed at and called "corpo shills". Sick and tired of those reddit populist buffoons claiming gaming is the issue of our time and that fucking Ubisoft, Epic, "the joos" or whatever other scapegoat is the reason for all the issues in our governments and our lives. Grow the fuck up.
And US-Americans say that the European Union is some pinko commie woke buzzword hellscape when really it’s just a right of centre/re corporatist cock filled twat pocket.
"hm, this is a game related issue, but I don't know games. Better I call someone who really knows about them in a broad sense." - some politician, probably
This is why we will never get rid of this kind of corruption. Lobbying is necessary to pass laws, and it's the perfect breeding ground for corruption.
Edit: TIL that in English "lobbying" directly refers to that kind of corruption, and not industry relevant input on laws to be passed.
When I say "lobbying is necessary to pass laws" I actually meant that you need industry specific knowledge to pass laws. Sorry for the confusion.
Yeah, the tragedy is that the input of industry is necessary before passing regulation, as they can bring up unforeseen problems with it that genuinely are unfair or unreasonable. The problem is that businesses don't just stop there.
I had this fever dream of something like a system where they pick random people of involved profession, of different demographics, ages and backgrounds on short notice to talk things over. But realistically, those people are just as susceptible to corruption and worst case, it puts them in danger.
tbh, there are also things that only the C Suite knows, since its a business or market related issue. Politicians also should aim to let the economic thrive as good as possible. So while your proposal seems to be reasonable, it isnt exactly thought to the end.
Yes, I wouldn't have excluded them from it either. But you know, make it one opinion of several. But I'm aware it isn't fully thought out. But I feel like our best chance is at least something towards that direction.
TIL that in English "lobbying" directly refers to that kind of corruption, and not industry relevant input on laws to be passed.
It doesn't, people just only hear about the corrupt kind. The definition I was taught in Political Science 101 absolutely included both the legal bribery kind and the legitimate informational kind.
okay, I might need a more reliable source then, before I am completely confused 🫠 I just checked up some definitions and it pretty much aligns with the legal bribery.
I was taught it is basically anything anyone does to try to influence how politicians (or a specific politician) votes.
An environmental charity publishing an open letter for or against legislation is lobbying, a guy from a company or a trade group taking a politician to dinner is lobbying, and you calling your representative/MP/equivalent is lobbying.
Thanks, that kinda checks out with how I learned about it 😶 but when it comes to other languages, I know it's not always the same, so I was insure about that.
It doesn't mean "only bribery". That technically predates Reagan but accelerated when he gutted the State Department (which, before him, was in charge of vetting and investigating corruption related to lobbying). It's also the kind of lobbying most headlines are written about because it's not the legal and ethical, thus boring kind. Headlines aren't (usually) written about boring, competent people doing what they are supposed to.
Few people heard about lobbying to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone, but that's how ecologists did it. Just going to politicians and arguing their case over and over until landing a few who decided the cost was low and benefits were worth it. According to recent studies, biological diversity has been increasing thanks to deer and other local animals having their natural predators return.
Side tangent but this is happening in my grandparents town.
They’re trying to build a 8000 acre solar farm, which in itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing; the problem is that the entire town is against it but NextEra, the company building it, is paying for legal counsel for a town judge who’s in charge of it. The town has to take all liability if anything goes wrong, and they are giving NextEra like 300 million in tax abatements.
The justices of the peace voted overwhelmingly against it, but the judge vetoed them. The town moved to put it to a vote, and NextEra lawyers had the county clerk change the day of the vote the day before the vote took place so that it already happened.
The battery box for the solar farm is being built right next to my grandparents land and their property value is going to plummet.
The case is currently going to the supreme court in Arkansas.
Don’t get me wrong solar panels are cool, but its fucked up that an entire town is against something but a company is paying their lawyers to tell a county judge how to exploit laws made in the 1970’s to skirt all the safeguards in place to prevent things from being done against the populations will.
Call it what you want, but if an entire town is opposed to something, especially when the terms of said thing are horrendous; is it not a bad thing that its being forced through anyways?
If the battery facility has a problem and catches fire, their tiny town with a population of less than 2,000 is now on the hook for the damages to a several hundred million dollar facility, as well as all of the liability if the run off poisons the water table.
It shouldn't matter whether or not solar farms are a good thing, what matters is that an entire town is against something but a billion dollar company is funding a legal team behind a county judge who is breaking the law to shoe horn the development through.
Their plan is literally to just drag it out in court long enough that the people of the town can no longer afford to pay their lawyers.
Their town isn't even getting any of the power... It's being loaded into batteries and taken 100+ miles away to a large city outside the state.
Even if you support solar farms it should still make you sick the way they are going about this.
and NextEra lawyers had the county clerk change the day of the vote the day before the vote took place so that it already happened
I don't think expanding solar is a bad thing, and no few ignorant people don't want them around even though it's not just an infrastructure positive but economic positive for the community. A lot of highway and high-speed-rail projects have been abandoned at a cost of billions because of irrational NIMBY people.
Even so, preventing a vote sounds like a violation of oath of office besides laws if there was supposed to be a vote on it in the first place.
"Lobbying" comes from the practice of visiting President U.S. Grant in the lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington DC, where he accepted gifts in exchange for policy changes on behalf of the country's growing corporate interests.
U.S. Grant wasn't a deeply corrupt man, he was actually fundamentally decent, but he was inexperienced in politics and naive. He assumed these polished and well-educated voices were acting in the best interests of the broader public, and they took him for a ride.
Inexperienced politicians are especially vulnerable to lobbyists as they are inexperienced in managing the regulations important to governing these special interest groups. That's compounded by the fact that they're the most vulnerable to being primaried by a well-funded replacement with industry backing.
Lobbying" comes from the practice of visiting President U.S. Grant in the lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington DC, where he accepted gifts in exchange for policy changes on behalf of the country's growing corporate interests
It does not, stop spreading disinformation. Lobbying derives from parliamentary practice of breaking into lobbies (committees) to consider policy changes. Due to it not always taking place in official chambers, it took place in hotel or other gathering place lobbies, it took on that term for a thing done in that place. The word itself predates Grant's administration and the practice itself is older than the English language.
I was giving the politician the absolute benefit of the doubt. My mentioned example is literally the best case scenario, where a politician simply does his job..... Reality is obviously a lot worse.
Even good and honest politicians are vulnerable to this though. The lobbyists don't need to be sought out, they come to you, and they will make it clear you will either play ball and get your campaign paid for or they'll go to war with you and you might lose your job.
See: AIPAC, oil/gas, every district with a military base that manages obsolete equipment their branch has been trying to get rid of for 40 years
I mean, there has to be some sort of middle ground in there somewhere. I get the point that consulting with someone that's going to be heavily biased and have a personal stake in the matter is a problem, but if they truly don't understand what they're ruling on that isn't a good place to be either.
You do know the verb 'lobbying' just means an individual or group trying to persuade a politician to support a policy right?
For example if I send my local member of parliament an email imploring them to support stop killing games, I am lobbying them, that's just what the word means.
Lobbying shouldn't involve people who aren't in the middle class. You own over x amount of assets or come from x company? No lobbying, conflict of interest.
Very. They had a closed doors meeting SKG were not allowed into a week or more ago I want to say. Before this, they were open-minded enough about it. after it. they shut the proverbial door. This tactic failed in California though from my understanding.
Yeah, not only that but they've had over 100 private meetings with lobbyists who are opposed to SKG and SKG (or any consumer representative for that matter) weren't allowed to join in those meetings.
So the number of meetings with SKG was about 10, while the meetings with lobbyists was over 100. The corruption isn't even trying to hide.
No, I'm so fucking petty I won't even give them satisfaction of calling me out with "hurr durr you pirate our games". No, they are a fucking dead company for me. They straight up don't exist. And I make sure to shit on them relentlessly because that's what they deserve. They are the ones who started the "always connected" bullshit with their stupid Ubisoft Connect I believe it was called before UPlay. People having disconnects from single player games because their servers were shit was the moment when I said enough is enough. It has been some 20 years after that and I'm sticking with my principles. Fuck Ubisoft.
The Lost Crown was one of the best Metroidvanias in many years imo.
I don't have a lot of interest in many of their games but it makes me bummed because Ubi, despite the harassment stuff in the news, is actually a very good employer. One of the best in the video game industry. I know people who have worked at Ubi Montreal and say it is bar none the best job they've ever had in the industry.
Yeah I hate that these people agree with me for the wrong reasons. There are legitimate reasons to hate Ubisoft and the majority of the posts are complaining about "woke" shit.
I don't really agree with them but I understand the sentiment.
Some companies just virtue signal a bit too blatantly to not notice. It's kind of like when people started to realise the rainbow-ish logos were never genuine.
Oh I am buying blackflag resync, then immediately refunding it, if enough people do the same in a short period of time then the banks will stop all transactions out of suspicion
It's the problem with EU. It's not a democratic entity in that the only people able to propose laws, are not democratically accountable or elected, and serve only with the blessing of the people already in charge.
They serve a few years, then go onto the boards of banks and corporations. And the only reason to stop them from going on these board, is to convince them to ban themselves from doing so.
This has nothing to do with the EU in particular; that's just a general issue with money in politics.
Just as an example, in the US, big tech CEOs meet directly with the President behind closed doors, and days later, an executive order turns something into law (at least temporarily). Members of the House or Congress casually outperform the best investment firms trading stocks with thinly veiled insider trading and favoritism.
India has massive issues with it, they even have a term for the problem "Billionaire Raj".
We don't even have to talk about Russia, they are ruled by the oligarchs.
This has nothing to do with the EU in particular; that's just a general issue with money in politics.
No, it's specifically an EU problem. Only the European commission can propose laws to be voted on. They are not democratically elected or accountable.
The US equivalent would be if US governors got to pick one lawmaker each, and only they got to propose laws if most of the other governors picks agreed with them.
In the US 26 states are republican, 24 are democrat. That means Democrats can't even suggest a vote for congress without getting 2 red states to back them up. Congress can't even vote on a law without multiple republicans deciding Democrats should have a say. 50% of the country be damned.
On top of that, Democrat states need 51% of those votes for new Democrat lawmakers to be accepted in the lawmaking group. It is inherently corrupt, beyond the possibility for democratic law change, because 26 republicans decide what laws can be proposed.
You see the problem right? This is a uniquely European Union way of governing.
Just as an example, in the US, big tech CEOs meet directly with the President behind closed doors, and days later, an executive order turns something into law (at least temporarily). Members of the House or Congress casually outperform the best investment firms trading stocks with thinly veiled insider trading and favoritism.
That's soft corruption. It's something that can be reformed. It's not baked into the system of government. Democrats have the power to propose reform. They aren't banned from putting up a law for a vote because they don't have 51% of congress.
India has massive issues with it, they even have a term for the problem "Billionaire Raj".
Sure. EU institutional corruption is different though. In india you can still get the votes and propose laws fixing that problem.
We don't even have to talk about Russia, they are ruled by the oligarchs.
Even the Russians don't ban elected officials from proposing laws. There isn't a room of 27 oligarcs that take a vote to decide if the duma is allowed to vote on new laws.
14 Europeans decide what can and can not be voted on. You see the problem yes? Even Russia isn't that systemically fucked. The EU is.
Those 14 unelected men and women on the commission have the power to bar any legislative change from being discussed in the EU parlament. As opposed to every modern democracy, there is no way for elected officials to propose a law. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic like that.
Eh that's not really true. The commission is made up of people who were chosen by democratically elected politicians. The commissioners are nominated by the council (the heads of states of each country, who are democratically elected in their countries), and are elected by the parliament (who are democratically elected by the people). It's a representative democracy, which is democratic. You can argue that it can be done more democratically/better (I'd agree with that), but to say that it's not democratic is just wrong.
If you dislike the commissioners, you can look at who your representatives in the council and parliament voted for, and choose your future votes with that in mind, just like all other democracies function. The parliament can also issue a vote of no confidence, which if it passes, would force the entire commission to resign.
Eh that's not really true. The commission is made up of people who were chosen by democratically elected politicians. The commissioners are nominated by the council (the heads of states of each country, who are democratically elected in their countries), and are elected by the parliament (who are democratically elected by the people). It's a representative democracy, which is democratic. You can argue that it can be done more democratically/better (I'd agree with that), but to say that it's not democratic is just wrong.
Got it, so even less democratically elected than Robert F. Kennedy, who at least the senate voted on. That should terrify you.
And that is without even giving him and his new club of 25 other Republicans sole powers to say what Congress can and cannot vote on..
It could be worse, way wirse in fact, because the European Commission can just refuse the people the elected politician sends, and keep telling them to pick someone else until the 14 are satisfied.
Look, you don't have to defend this system. I know the knee jerk reaction to a lot of people us to carry water for the EU. But it is genuinely a terribly undemocratic process.
If you dislike the commissioners, you can look at who your representatives in the council and parliament voted for, and choose your future votes with that in mind, just like all other democracies function. The parliament can also issue a vote of no confidence, which if it passes, would force the entire commission to resign.
I see the whole "26 Republicans would have all the power" thing was list on you.
Look.
Let's say I was happy with the pick, in fact my pick was the divinely resurrected Mr. Rogers remade as a citizen of the EU, come to make all well in the world while promising he is going to suggest reforms for the parlament to vote on. In fact, 100% of elected politicians and every single voting age citizen in the entire union loves mr. Rogers!
but 14 grumpy members on the commission from, say, eastern Europe, all expecting well paying jobs at the local banks, banded together and voted to tell my country "Fuck you, pick someone else!" And so I had to go pick someone else, again and again until those 14 grumpy members from eastern Europe was satisfied with my pick.
Still don't see the issue? Do you feel like you have democratic oversight here?
Even if the commission were to let mr. Rogers be a member of their little cartel, he can't even suggest a reform to vote on without 13 of the other commissioners signing off on the proposal.
I'm not saying the commission is perfect. I agree with you that the commission should be directly elected by the people, what I disagree with is to label the current system as undemocratic.
The "26 republicans" wasn't lost to me, because you didn't mention it in your comment? Either way, those 14 eastern Europeans (dunno why you specify them to be eastern) in the commission don't decide who else will be elected to the commission, so I don't really see how they would force them to pick someone else. I'd also find it strange if 100% of the politicians liked this Rodgers guy, but for some reason they decided to elect overtly corrupt people with completely different political positions to the other spots. Presumably, the politicians who elected those corrupt commissioners wouldn't like Rodgers, or vice versa, no?
Both the President of the European Commission and the European Parliament have the power to straight up reject or force the replacement of national commissioner nominees.
If the majority of the European Commission don't like your nominee, they aren't getting a seat at the table.
I mentioned eastern Europe because historically they have tended to act as a block, which is a problem. It means that regardless of how MEPs want to vote, statistically proposals that benefit eastern Europe have a greater chance of being presented to parlament.
For the same reason, you only need 14 corrupt commissioners to block a Mr Rogers from getting on the commission in the first place. There is no democratic control over the process.
The whole thing is as democratic as Late Middle Ages England where the house of Commons were only allowed to vote on matters the king and the house of Lords tell them they are allowed to vote on. It's basically the exact same system. Yes, commoners can be made lord, but they is entirely up to the house of Lords and the monarch.
That's a deficit of democracy. It's government only with the consent of a council of 27 unelected bureaucrats who oversee themselves.
Both the President of the European Commission and the European Parliament have the power to straight up reject or force the replacement of national commissioner nominees.
And the President of the European Commission is nominated by the European Council (democratically elected), and is then either approved or vetod by the Parliament (democratically elected). The Parliament is also, as I said, democratically elected. So both the positions that have, as you say, the power to straight up reject or force the replacement of national commissioner nominees, are democratically elected.
If the majority of the European Commission don't like your nominee, they aren't getting a seat at the table.
The opinion of the commissioners don't matter, because, as you said, the only opinions who matter are the President, Parliament, and the Council.
I mentioned eastern Europe because historically they have tended to act as a block, which is a problem. It means that regardless of how MEPs want to vote, statistically proposals that benefit eastern Europe have a greater chance of being presented to parlament.
While problematic, it is still democratic. The eastern European MEPs are democratically elected, and if they decide to act in their nations interests instead of European interests, that is still democracy.
For the same reason, you only need 14 corrupt commissioners to block a Mr Rogers from getting on the commission in the first place. There is no democratic control over the process.
The commissioners can be as corrupt or non-corrupt as they want, their opinion doesn't matter. You'd need corrupt heads of state, a corrupt President (that was eleceted by the heads of states and Parliament), or/and a corrupt Parliament. And because the heads of states and the Parliament are all elected, there is a democratic control over the process. If your representatives keep nominating and voting for corrupt people, you should vote for someone else.
The whole thing is as democratic as Late Middle Ages England where the house of Commons were only allowed to vote on matters the king and the house of Lords tell them they are allowed to vote on. It's basically the exact same system. Yes, commoners can be made lord, but they is entirely up to the house of Lords and the monarch.
For the analogy to fit, the House of Lords would be elected by the people as well, and the King would be nominated by the democratically elected House of Lords and then approved by the democratically elected House of Commons. The House of Commons would also be able to do a vote of no confidence to oust the King and his cabinet. I'm not that familiar with medieval England, but I'm pretty sure this wasn't the case, which would make the current system a lot more democratic.
Ngl I don't see how the Ubisoft CEOs is the ones who made a difference here.
Ubisoft is fucking dying and everyone involved with it should be losing money, because Ubisoft has been bleeding money for pretty much a decade.
So what exactly would the Ubisoft CEO have payed them with, Monopoly Money?
Honestly I think it's really just as simple as copyright law being to much of a hassle to deal with. Nobody is willing to invest tine and money to make it work fir a bunch of videogames or so they probably think.
That said this still isn't over. From what I have heard SKG anticipated this outcome and was already preparing to do something else that would have had a higher chance to begin with.
Edit: Just watched Ross' most recent video on this that I wasn't aware off.
Apparently the industry had hundreds of private hearing with the commision in which undisclosed things were discussed. Meanwhile SKG had like a few dozens at best.
So yeah almost certainly corruption, however I still doubt it was Ubisoft of all things that had any influence here. Like I explained before Ubisoft is just barely surviving their continued downfall and I doubt there is much left zo bribe politicians with.
Other giants of the industry however have the means to do that, which is ironic because simply not lobbying against SKG would have been much cheaper.
The EU commission is corrupt as hell, nothing but a stain on EU. Something tells me the quatargate was only a distraction to have everyone point at the parliament while UVDL and her friends can continue their little game. We need them fully investigated and impeached/arrested if necessary.
That could very easily just be a coincidence. I doubt a single CEO is enough to influence their decision. This was always going to go this way, anyway. As long as there is at least one MEP still fighting for it, it won’t just disappear.
EU is great in a lot of places but the moment they meet resistance from copyright holders the tune is different, same thing happened with ACTA. It was funny how they marketed it towards musician mostly, that they were doing it for the poor artist that was getting murdered by pirating? obviously not the issue for music anymore, more an issue that spotify wont pay them. Sony and WB Was spearheading it since they were trying hard to make sure games and video media was protected a lot better. It shed light to just how dumb some politicians are, i was kinda thankful for that, but noone was following up on it, was the easiest slam dunks ever, and not a single journalist picked it up.
Aight, can we force thos einvolved to be investigated for corruption somehow? Even it fails to materialize, at least the public imagw damage will force those ghouls out at least.
Well ofc they meet with both parties. Dosnt mean theirs any corruption.
Honestly with how the EU is forcing Apple and other companies to follow standards, I doubt theirs any corruption.
No surprise Ubisoft being a French company, used their EU connections to sway the votes. Other major companies are America based... doubt they have much say for EU laws.
THIS. this should make us all go get Ursula with pitchforks and torches... it is clearly due to corruption. go read their reasons and you'll see by yourself. i couldn't belive it. the EU is really a joke when it comes down to people initiative 💀
Because their CEO is the one that said gamers need to get used to not owning their games. Many of their single player games require online access to play.
6.7k
u/bartek_666666 Jun 17 '26
Right after meeting with ubisoft CEO.