> Democratic legislators and candidates who are desperate for an issue that will garner them support and votes
"gamer fury" over not being able to buy porno video games with their credit cards is not exact something that is going to garner the Dems any new support or votes.
If that's how you choose to frame it, you're absolutely right.
If, instead, you frame it as "Duopoly of payment processors are deciding which legal content you are allowed to purchase.", surprise, you'll get more support.
"gamers who want porn games" is how it will be phrased by their political opponents, and I expect they'll be more persuasive. This is probably not a winning political issue.
Censorship has lots of popular support most places. The reason it's less successful in the US isn't because people in the US are broadly opposed to it; it's because the courts have traditionally upheld strong rights to freedom of expression under the 1st Amendment.
Sure, but that's way too abstract and nobody is going to understand that. They'll say, OK, but what's an example of the problem? And then the gamers have to explain that they can't buy pornos on their gaming rig anymore.
You'd think that people would ask about the details, examples and dig deeper in those situations, right? Yet there's so many people who think gamergate was about journalism ethics.
My original comment was more highlighting that framing it as "unable to buy porno games" was obviously bad, and there are certainly better ways to frame it (and offered an example, off the top of my head).
However, someone smarter than me will have to come up with what that looks like. I don't have the perfect framing to present to you, or I would be heading up the political movement myself.
any politicians who want to take an anti-trust approach. So, very few in the US.
>There are better free-speech hills to die on.
And that attitude is why the Left has gotten so weak. The Right died on the hill of some emails and a laptop. Maybe we should start with some smaller battles first.
>Conspiracy and cover-up by the leader of the opposition is a great hill to die on. It comes with a built-in constituency who will actually show up.
Until you become the leaders covering it up, I suppose. It's a great thing Trump doesn't think that far in advance. A proper personality conman would be truly terrifying.
Maybe it's a good hill to climb. A stupid one to die on if you don't deliver. Conspiracy theorists only have allegiance to justifying themselves, not a personality.
>appeal to folks who only show up in deep-blue cities.
So, half the population? Seems like a large base to appeal to. Oh well, nothing a little gerrymandering won't fix.
> Until you become the leaders covering it up, I suppose
Sure, covering up your own messes is survival. That said, it’s not like Trump being a rapist and liking them young was concealed from the electorate ex ante…
> Maybe it's a good hill to climb. A stupid one to die on if you don't deliver
It’s a lucrative hill to climb. I wouldn’t say it’s a good one.
The funny thing about Trump is he’s been done in, in part, by his authoritarianism. He can’t credibly claim an external force is holding him back (as he did with his tax returns) because he’s eviscerated all such forces.
> half the population?
Oh man no, maybe 5% of the population in Manhattan shows up. So maybe half of that. (Which is a lot of people. But not a lot of districts.)
"gamer fury" over not being able to buy porno video games with their credit cards is not exact something that is going to garner the Dems any new support or votes.