Most of those resulted in “the laws in place are already good enough” responses. From your links
The EU response to stop vivisection:
The Commission considers that the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (Directive 2010/63/EU), which the Initiative seeks to repeal, is the right legislation to achieve the underlying objectives of the Initiative. It sets full replacement of animals as its ultimate goal as soon as it is scientifically possibly, and provides a legally binding stepwise approach as non-animal alternatives become available. Therefore, no repeal of that legislation was proposed
The EU response to Save the Bees:
In its reply, the Commission underlined that rather than proposing new legislative acts, the priority is to ensure that the proposals currently being negotiated by the co-legislators are timely adopted and then implemented, together with an effective implementation of the CAP.
The EU response to Stop Finning:
the Commission commits to better enforce the EU’s already strong traceability measures by strengthening the enforcement of EU law that applies to the entire value chain - control of fishing at sea, full traceability of shark products from landing to consumer, consumer information, and prevention and redress of illegal trade - and ensuring the collection and reporting of complete and reliable information by fishermen and Member States’ authorities on all these aspects.
Oh I don’t know… how about banning glyphosate, an incredibly dangerous pesticide, which is now gone from EU produce but still plaguing many countries in the rest of the world? And how about some clean water to go with that salad? Because the Clean Water Directive received major updates as a direct result of collecting 1.80 million signatures.
the Clean Water Directive received major updates as a direct result of collecting 1.80 million signatures.
You might mean the Drinking Water Directive, and 1.6 million signatures.
I see some press releases on updates, but I can’t find anything outside of government websites saying things have improved. I’d imagine if this was a big deal there’d be news stories on it.
The entire premise of your comment is absurd, but let’s assume for a moment we really do live in a world where a legal process can’t be used unless it’s successfully been used for widespread change before; what other action do you suggest people should take?
A boycott of the worst companies. I’ve seen lots of people commenting they’re never buying an Ubisoft game again under pretty much every article in relation to them. Perhaps boycotts haven’t worked in the past but this seems to have enough support and momentum that it could have a real direct impact. Recently, boycotts have been pretty impactful as the world has stopped buying US products and within the US, conservative groups have influenced many companies with boycott and social media campaigns against companies. It’s also something that all supporters globally can participate in rather than everyone just hoping a European law might affect products purchased elsewhere.
The petition was a great way to gauge support, but I feel like people are going all in on its success and when the EU parliament likely issues its “we take consumer protection seriously which is why we already have the best laws in the world and don’t need to change anything” statement, people are just going to act defeated. There’s going to be a doomer post about how the EU parliament is corrupt and piratesoftware is the devil that gets 1000 upvotes and then that’ll be it instead of using the support and momentum in a more direct and impactful way.
There are lots of ways to make a change. It shouldn’t be all in on a single petition and that’s it. That’s not how social and political changes happen.
So your suggestion is instead of any attempt at regulation people should just boycott a company years after they’ve already given that company their money, despite the fact that you admit n even more ideal circumstances boycotts still do not work?
I’ve never said don’t sign it. I’m saying don’t be surprised when the EU declines to change laws. It’s probably going to take more than a petition to actually see change.
Maybe I come off wrong in text? I wasn’t trying to be an ass. I don’t think any of my comments were rude. There’s a comment in this thread calling someone a cuck with upvotes. I’d say that’s being an ass. I was just trying to be realistic.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
All famously solved by an online petition
To be clear, this is not an “online petition”. This is the beginning of a defined legal process in the EU.
Which EU law stemming from this process is your favourite?
deleted by creator
It is! It wasn’t created because of an online petition!
deleted by creator
Most of those resulted in “the laws in place are already good enough” responses. From your links
The EU response to stop vivisection:
The EU response to Save the Bees:
The EU response to Stop Finning:
I’m not an EU citizen so I’m not politically informed enough to answer that.
Oh I don’t know… how about banning glyphosate, an incredibly dangerous pesticide, which is now gone from EU produce but still plaguing many countries in the rest of the world? And how about some clean water to go with that salad? Because the Clean Water Directive received major updates as a direct result of collecting 1.80 million signatures.
Glyphosate isn’t banned in the EU. From the EU website: “Glyphosate is currently approved as an active substance in the EU until 15 December 2033”.
There was a petition to ban it, but the response was “On the first aim, to ‘ban glyphosate-based herbicides’, the Commission concluded that there are neither scientific nor legal grounds to justify a ban of glyphosate, and will not make a legislative proposal to that effect.”
You might mean the Drinking Water Directive, and 1.6 million signatures.
I see some press releases on updates, but I can’t find anything outside of government websites saying things have improved. I’d imagine if this was a big deal there’d be news stories on it.
While the EU didn’t enact laws directly due to the petition it did create political interest, and laws, that have improved both issues
The entire premise of your comment is absurd, but let’s assume for a moment we really do live in a world where a legal process can’t be used unless it’s successfully been used for widespread change before; what other action do you suggest people should take?
A boycott of the worst companies. I’ve seen lots of people commenting they’re never buying an Ubisoft game again under pretty much every article in relation to them. Perhaps boycotts haven’t worked in the past but this seems to have enough support and momentum that it could have a real direct impact. Recently, boycotts have been pretty impactful as the world has stopped buying US products and within the US, conservative groups have influenced many companies with boycott and social media campaigns against companies. It’s also something that all supporters globally can participate in rather than everyone just hoping a European law might affect products purchased elsewhere.
The petition was a great way to gauge support, but I feel like people are going all in on its success and when the EU parliament likely issues its “we take consumer protection seriously which is why we already have the best laws in the world and don’t need to change anything” statement, people are just going to act defeated. There’s going to be a doomer post about how the EU parliament is corrupt and piratesoftware is the devil that gets 1000 upvotes and then that’ll be it instead of using the support and momentum in a more direct and impactful way.
There are lots of ways to make a change. It shouldn’t be all in on a single petition and that’s it. That’s not how social and political changes happen.
So your suggestion is instead of any attempt at regulation people should just boycott a company years after they’ve already given that company their money, despite the fact that you admit n even more ideal circumstances boycotts still do not work?
It’s not mutually exclusive. I’d suggest people do as many things as they can.
But not this apparently.
I’ve never said don’t sign it. I’m saying don’t be surprised when the EU declines to change laws. It’s probably going to take more than a petition to actually see change.
You mean like all the things in the link OP posted which you scrolled past just to be an ass in the comments?
Maybe I come off wrong in text? I wasn’t trying to be an ass. I don’t think any of my comments were rude. There’s a comment in this thread calling someone a cuck with upvotes. I’d say that’s being an ass. I was just trying to be realistic.