>>715247940
>They are actively seeking for it to be law in the EU
They are actively seeking A law that achieves something beneficial in this topic, not their law. They didn't even propose a law, just an idea that lawyers will cook in the oven for atleast 2-3 years as they come up with a good directive.
>might not fully understand or care that much about the issue
That's their job. They hire actual experts like you would in court to give tangible evidence of feasibility. It's a bit pessimistic to think that lawmen just make laws out of the blue simply because they do not care about video games when this
>>715246739 already shows that they do indeed care, atleast to some extent.
>very vague in how it intends to achieve its objectives
Well then you talk to people, over the course of many years. Why do you think that this gets voted and then they'll go
>"alright then, write this into a law RIGHT FUCKING NOW"
It will take years of back and forth between lawyers, initiative representatives and experts to forge a directive.
Imagine it like this.
>bridge
>is bad, about to fall
>people don't care
>someone writes an official letter to the government
>hey, I've gathered a million people and we all think the bridge should be fixed, please get some engineers and figure something out
>engineers sit in a room for a while then come up with a feasible answer to save the bridge
instead I often see people think that it's like
>hey please fix the bridge
>okay, GIVE ME THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS NECCESSARY OR WE WON'T and I hope you're an engineer because we'll treat you as such
It's complete lunacy!
If anything, this initiative opened my eyes about how easy it is to misunderstand a government process for many.