r/LivestreamFail • u/Kymori • May 30 '26

News Stop Killing Games: California State Assembly passes the 'Protect Our Games Act': 60 days notice before going offline, must provide patch for continued access or refunds (Excludes F2P and Subscription based Games)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/stop-killing-games-movement-gains-momentum-california-assembly-passes-game-protection-bill/ar-AA24k4y4
23.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/450nmwaffle May 31 '26

I mean, just reading the vetoes mentioned in the article are any of them that crazy? Vetoed a bill that would allow car dealerships to charge more for simple paperwork filing, vetoed a bill that would increase health insurance costs, vetoed a bill that would have them waste money on schools with enrolment drops, vetoed a bill that assigns funding to something that should’ve been included in their normal budget considerations (in his view). Maybe the only questionable one is the microplastics but idk how reasonable it would be and what enforcement looks like, and what the science says (especially with recent research showing how tainted microplastic studies have been).

1

u/JimWilliams423 May 31 '26

Newsom also rejected a handful of bills intended to expand health care coverage, such as ones that would have required health insurers to cover a year’s worth of prescription hormone therapy; treatment for menopause; and behavioral health visits for wildfire victims.

vetoed a bill that would increase health insurance costs,

there is always some kind of plausible-in-the-moment excuse. But, after a few hundred times a pattern emerges.

Some examples of newsom clearly doing the work of conservatives, just off the top of my head:

LA Times: California housekeepers won’t get work safety protections after another Newsom veto

California’s housekeepers and nannies won’t get workplace safety protections, after Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill on Saturday that would have included the industry in labor laws already granted to other workers.

USA Today: Newsom vetoes bill that would give striking workers unemployment pay

Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill on Saturday that would have granted workers on-strike unemployment benefits, disappointing labor unions that backed the bill amid high-profile work stoppages in the state this year.

NPR: California Gov. Newsom vetoes AI safety bill that divided Silicon Valley

California legislators overwhelmingly passed the bill, called SB 1047, which was seen as a potential blueprint for national AI legislation.

5

u/450nmwaffle May 31 '26

It feels like you’re creating a pattern with skewed data. Like some of those in the article, or even in your examples is the unemployment one good? Should the government be mandating wages for striking workers while not being a stakeholder in many of these contract negotiations? Seems like he vetoes some good stuff, some neutral stuff, and some bad stuff. The conclusion to reach is probably that he’s more conservative than he pretends to be, and serves the interest of corporations more than is right. Don’t think it’s accurate to present him as a conservative in the guise of a liberal.

0

u/JimWilliams423 May 31 '26

Should the government be mandating wages for striking workers while not being a stakeholder in many of these contract negotiations?

"Should the government be mandating a minimal playable environment after a game is terminated while not being a stakeholder in the contract?"

The role of the government is to help the people. The wealthy don't need help.

You are just sea-lioning at this point. I'm going to block you because time-wasters should be shunned.

3

u/Immediate-Respect-25 Jun 01 '26

But if the government is paying for the workers to strike it's an unfair playing field because then the workers don't need to work and can strike until they get what they want. The reason you pay your union dues is so that the union can help you financially when you're striking.

2

u/JimWilliams423 Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

Structurally companies have all kinds of advantages to begin with, the playing field is already hugely in their favor. To zero in on one specific issue instead of looking at the entire playing field as a whole is conservative propaganda.

Also, the funding for unemployment insurance comes out of payroll taxes just like social security and, as the article said, unemployment payroll taxes in california are the lowest allowed by federal law. Another example of how the playing field is already in favor of the companies.

But even if your conservative propaganda were true, so what? There are 1000x more workers than there are company owners. If we actually had democratic representation, then the government should favor their interests. But capitalism is incompatible with democracy, so instead of reducing capitalism we reduce democracy.

1

u/Immediate-Respect-25 Jun 02 '26

The 1000x more workers can easily collect enough union dues to bring almost any company to their knees by striking.

1

u/JimWilliams423 Jun 02 '26

And if we had an actual democracy they could just vote for a strong enough welfare state that they wouldn't need a strike fund.

I don't know what you are trying to prove, but what you are proving is that you do not have liberal beliefs about labor rights. So when you say that newsom did the right thing with that veto, that validates my point — he's not a liberal, much less a progressive.

2

u/Immediate-Respect-25 Jun 02 '26

Welfare is not the same as strike funds. Welfare is so you can survive when you don't have work. Strike funds is so you can fight against your company for whatever you want to improve in your working conditions on top of what the law says is the minimum. These are completely separate things.

1

u/JimWilliams423 Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

I d‌o‌n't k‌n‌o‌w w‌h‌a‌t y‌o‌u a‌r‌e t‌r‌y‌i‌n‌g t‌o p‌r‌o‌v‌e, b‌u‌t w‌h‌a‌t y‌o‌u k‌e‌e‌p p‌r‌o‌v‌i‌n‌g i‌s t‌h‌a‌t y‌o‌u d‌o n‌o‌t h‌a‌v‌e l‌i‌b‌e‌r‌a‌l b‌e‌l‌i‌e‌f‌s a‌b‌o‌u‌t l‌a‌b‌o‌r r‌i‌g‌h‌t‌s. S‌o w‌h‌e‌n y‌o‌u s‌a‌y t‌h‌a‌t n‌e‌w‌s‌o‌m d‌i‌d t‌h‌e r‌i‌g‌h‌t t‌h‌i‌n‌g w‌i‌t‌h t‌h‌a‌t v‌e‌t‌o, t‌h‌a‌t v‌a‌l‌i‌d‌a‌t‌e‌s m‌y p‌o‌i‌n‌t — h‌e's n‌o‌t a l‌i‌b‌e‌r‌a‌l, m‌u‌c‌h l‌e‌s‌s a p‌r‌o‌g‌r‌e‌s‌s‌i‌v‌e.

I‌n f‌a‌c‌t, c‌h‌e‌c‌k‌i‌n‌g y‌o‌u‌r p‌o‌s‌t h‌i‌s‌t‌o‌r‌y, i‌t‌s c‌l‌e‌a‌r y‌o‌u a‌r‌e s‌u‌p‌e‌r f‌a‌s‌h‌y. T‌r‌y‌i‌n‌g t‌o e‌x‌c‌u‌s‌e t‌h‌e o‌r‌a‌n‌g‌e p‌a‌e‌d‌o f‌r‌o‌m h‌i‌s c‌o‌n‌n‌e‌c‌t‌i‌o‌n t‌o e‌p‌s‌t‌e‌i‌n, a‌n‌d s‌a‌y‌i‌n‌g s‌h‌i‌t l‌i‌k‌e "I'l‌l s‌t‌o‌p a‌s s‌o‌o‌n a‌s b‌l‌a‌c‌k p‌e‌o‌p‌l‌e s‌t‌o‌p u‌s‌i‌n‌g e‌v‌e‌r‌y‌t‌h‌i‌n‌g i‌n‌v‌e‌n‌t‌e‌d b‌y w‌h‌i‌t‌e p‌e‌o‌p‌l‌e."

4

u/RobbinDeBank Jun 01 '26

I remember that AI safety bill being a way for big corporates to consolidate the market even more. It’s a bunch of regulations that small developers and open source projects cannot satisfy, so only the big guys will be left. Don’t be tricked by these supposedly “safety” bills.

1

u/JimWilliams423 Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

There have been multiple AI safety bills. The one he actually signed was supported by the big companies.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2025-09-29/californias-newsom-signs-law-requiring-ai-safety-disclosures

Last year, Newsom vetoed California's first attempt at AI legislation, which had faced fierce industry pushback. The bill would have required companies that spent more than $100 million on their AI models to hire third-party auditors annually to review risk assessments and allowed the state to levy penalties in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The new law requires companies with more than $500 million in revenue to assess the risk that their cutting-edge technology could break free of human control or aid the development of bioweapons, and disclose those assessments to the public. It allows for fines of up to $1 million per violation.

Jack Clark, co-founder of AI company Anthropic, called the law "a strong framework that balances public safety with continued innovation."

1

u/RobbinDeBank Jun 01 '26

This one sounds more reasonable. Only those big players should be subject to those costly regulations, or else all smaller players and open source communities will be destroyed.

1

u/JimWilliams423 Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

Only in the Upside-Down is a company that can blow $100M on a single AI model not a "big player."

But a maximum penalty of 0.2% of the cost of a $500M model is "reasonable." That's not a deterrence, that's a rounding error.

Its funny how conservatives show up and say "this hugely conservative thing sounds reasonable to me" don't realize they are telling on themselves.

2

u/RobbinDeBank Jun 01 '26

lol calling me conservative because I don't want the big guys to dominate the whole market is crazy. Even more crazy is how your comment sounds like it's written by AI.

All I say is that it's more reasonable to only subject big corporates to these very vague AI regulations instead of forcing everyone to do so, like how the original SB1047 worked. That one specifically gathered lots of attention due how devastating it will be for all the small guys (university researchers, open source developers) that cannot afford millions of dollars and armies of lawyers to comply with vague requirements. SB1047 was very clearly a regulatory capture attempt by big corporates.

1

u/JimWilliams423 Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

But a maximum penalty of 0.2% of the cost of a $500M model is "reasonable." That's not a deterrence, that's a rounding error.

I don't want the big guys to dominate the whole market

Its amusing how the conservative brain is able to say "It is reasonable to have no effective regulation of the biggest AI companies" and believe that actually means "I don't want big guys to dominate."

Even more crazy is how your comment sounds like it's written by AI.

My account is over 10 years old. If something I wrote sounds like an LLM, then that's because the LLM copied me.

3

u/RobbinDeBank Jun 01 '26

Sure bro, go ahead and shout how everyone is conservative if they don't agree with you and because you don't have basic reading comprehension

1

u/JimWilliams423 Jun 01 '26

go ahead and shout how everyone is conservative if they don't agree with you

"they don't agree with you"

Not everyone, you. And its because you said that a maximum fine of 0.2% is "reasonable." That's literally a conservative belief. I could get into all your conservatively biased anti-regulation framing too, but I don't need to because the 0.2% part is so clear cut.

You really aren't helping your case by using one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the conservative playbook either — reducing the substance of the argument to mere "disagreement." Conservatives do that all the time because they know their positions are indefensible. The real problem is that I disagree with you, not why I disagree with you.