>>717969258
I want legislation passed that makes it illegal for major platforms with market dominance and de facto monopolies to reject or censor games for "muh brand" related reasons. I want "brand/reputational risk" as abused by major companies as an excuse to censor content they don't like to be killed completely.

This is the heart of the issue, and it's not limited to creditgakis. Sony, Nintendo and Steam have all pulled variations of this as a reason to deny games, especially Japanese ones. This is the concept that has lead to 90+% of corporate censorship for nearly a decade now, and it is the concept itself that you should be viciously attacking. "Brands" that run vital platforms that artists and developers depend on for distribution should be far more accountable to those who use them than they currently are, and this needs to be codified legally. Anyone who's had their game banned from Steam can tell you how devastating it was, other storefronts are not real alternatives, they offer only a tiny fraction of the sales potential that Steam offers. Same with Sony and Nintendo, in fact, there is NO alternative to them in their space. Sony's policies alone destroyed an entire genre of Japanese games. This should not have been allowed to happen. Artists' free speech rights and very livelihoods are being infringed by private corporate platforms with zero accountability to their users. Thus I propose that any platform above a certain percentage of market share should be beholden to laws that regulate them as public marketplaces, denying them the ability to reject or censor games for brand or reputation-related reasons, on pain of lawsuits from affected developers. Something like what happened to Omega Labyrinth Z or Tokyo Clanpool should never have been allowed to occur in a market that was functioning properly. The system is broken, and it needs fixing.