this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
1222 points (98.5% liked)

Games

40546 readers
2815 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dremor@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Dremor@jlai.lu
modfxomt@lemmy.world
1222
The UK Stop Killing Games petition has reached 100.000 signatures (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 week ago by RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works to c/games@lemmy.world
176 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/41402388

Please support the initiative of Stop Killing Games!

EU Petition

UK Petition

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I can't wait for this to effectively do nothing oe alternatively kill games that have an online only capability that refuse to devote work to force a single player model/release their netcode.

This is the stupidest, well intentioned movement I've seen in awhile and the fervor behind it is a waste. You know what you want but refuse to understand why it can't happen. You chase the past not realizing you can never go back.

This is most republican shit I've ever seen. "Make games great again!" Jesus.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No need to be so salty. Maybe instead just read what skg really is about because you obviously have misunderstood it completely.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

People are sitting on PS for giving a completely correct take. I've read SKG and even listened to what the petition owners have said. I've stayed in the loop which is why it's so frustrating to watch people with noble intentions cannibalize people for telling you it's not only misguided but impossible.

Legislation will not compel a dying company to release code that will let any random person breathe life back into it on their own whim. Period.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Legislation will not compel a dying company to release code

Well I guess then it's a good thing that the petition doesn't demand that.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Upon reading the UK version over again you're right - it's even worse. It states that companies no longer be allowed to 'disable' games which they often don't do. They just stop maintaining them until the infrastructure for it disappears.

I expected at the very least gamers would have understood the problem they're complaining about but I got ahead of myself. The only thing SKG might accomplish legally is to allow third parties to host servers at End of Life but the counter argument to that is cheaters using their own servers.

None of this is thought out. You're demanding a solution be created AND implemented. This will go nowhere. Pirate Software was right and it's stunning.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Upon reading the UK version over again you're right

:)

it's even worse.

sigh

Why?

It states that companies no longer be allowed to 'disable' games which they often don't do. They just stop maintaining them until the infrastructure for it disappears.

You're close. Maybe read it again. Or something. I don't know.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Maybe instead of being the condescending dickhead you and yours project onto Pirate Software, you could instead point out specifics since you're advocating for it. I'm confident you can't though since I'm sure you haven't read shit, just listened to people slobber all over it.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Maybe we wouldn't have to be such condescending dickheads if you cared to not make up stuff.

the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.

That's the core idea. Publishers should just make sure that after they milked their product it can somehow be run without their interference.

That doesn't require sources. In fact, this doesn't even state any method that is preferred. Could they release sources? Sure. They could also release server binaries. They could also patch out the connection to their servers and only leave people with local multiplayer mode or something. They could do whatever. The initiative doesn't care.

The practice of licensing a product indefinitely but then just disabling it remotely is hostile to consumers. If they really, really want to keep their business model, they should sell licenses that are limited to a certain timeframe right from the start. Selling perpetual licenses and then disabling them without leaving consumers with any means to still access what they paid for shouldn't be legal and probably isn't.

Also this right here:

The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.

Nobody wants your ip. Just don't break stuff you sold.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"The initiative doesn't care"

Right. There is no clear solution to the problem, only a demand for a solution.

"They could release sources/server binaries"

At what point? When is a game legally considered dead and a company legally obligated to provide that? What happens if they just shut down prior to fulfilling it?

"They could patch out their servers and leave local multiplayer or something"

Or something? This is what PS drilled into this initiative for. You don't actually grasp what you're asking for or understand what legal measures even exist to enforce them. You have a deep desire to go back to the early 2000s where your data wasn't really hosted on servers, it was just arena shooter and LAN parties.

Games today are not able to curtail to these absurd demands. Not because they refuse to but because the complexity of what they offer is not easily designed to be replaced.

You don't like the current model but fail to provide an alternative that can replace it. That's the critique. It's beyond childish to look at a problem, offer nothing, then get pissed when someone tells you that you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't like that I only own a license to play a game either, but what's the alternative? If you own the game, they can't release a patch to fix bugs or it would be a violation of the law for modifying your property. That's bad.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Right. There is no clear solution to the problem, only a demand for a solution.

Yes. Because that's how laws work.

At what point? When is a game legally considered dead and a company legally obligated to provide that? What happens if they just shut down prior to fulfilling it?

At the point at which they stop providing that service themselves. "What happens if they don't?" Yeah duh, what happens if you break a law? Then courts can enforce it. Is this the first time you heard about laws?

You don't actually grasp what you're asking for or understand what legal measures even exist to enforce them.

I understand it just well. You telling me I don't doesn't change that.

Games today are not able to curtail to these absurd demands. Not because they refuse to but because the complexity of what they offer is not easily designed to be replaced.

Bullshit. Also, as I said, they could just release their shitty server once they shut it down. You're taking one solution that doesn't require them to do that that I suggested, assume that games are just too complex for that specific solution and tell me that this assumption (which is also debatable at best) invalidates the idea of playing a game locally. What nonsense.

You don't like the current model but fail to provide an alternative that can replace it. That's the critique. It's beyond childish to look at a problem, offer nothing, then get pissed when someone tells you that you don't know what you're talking about.

I provided plenty of alternatives. If publishers or you don't like it, fine, then come up with your own. Again, laws work like that: they provide guardrails. The idea that people should be able to keep using what they bought has been the core of trade for millenia but suddenly it's insane to ask for that? What nonsense. Gog sells plenty of current ones without drm, so somehow it is still possible to compile games without attaching a shitty service model. But even if there's a some shitty game that the publisher absolutely doesn't want to release after they already milked it beyond profitability (what you say would be impossible, which I still think is bullshit), according to this initiative they could just stop selling perpetual licenses. At least people then know what they're getting into.

you own the game, they can't release a patch to fix bugs or it would be a violation of the law for modifying your property. That's bad.

What the fuck? No! Nobody wants a law that prohibits changing games. Games have been patched since forever. Where did you get that idea? You keep coming up with nonsense that has nothing to do with initiative. Just because a company can't shut down my car remotely doesn't mean they can't repair it! How do you come up with that crap?

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Yes that's how laws work"

No. That's not how laws work. Laws provide detailed steps and instructions that must be followed in specific scenarios. They're designed like that to avoid loopholes.

"At the point they stop providing service"

Great. So the company shuts down the same day, declares bankruptcy, and is immune to further legislation because it's dead. You can't sue the company, it doesn't exist anymore. Is this the first time you've tried to hold a corporation liable?

"I've provided plenty of alternatives"

Cite one. You can't "make guardrails" and expect companies to just figure it out you oaf. That's like proposing a law that nobody can walk to work because it's unsafe. How? Who cares! Figure it out everyone!

"GOG can still sell games without DRM"

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? DRM as of right now is how companies can legally allow you to play their game while still retaining the right to modify and alter it after the point of sale. Traditionally, you'd get a game - then nothing. No update. No bug fixes. No dlc. THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR.

"Games have been patched since forever!"

My brother in Christ, I've been playing since before games had online anything. Internet matchmaking in general was a free service included with certain titles. It can't be provided perpetually and you expecting them to basically open source their net code is absurd.

We have games that cannot work on a LAN model but you're intent on forcing that model on every game, even if it means killing those games or forcing them to not be made in the first place. That's what happens when you don't clearly outline legislation.

That's the critique. That your well intentions are just unstructured bullshit that can't be actioned on. You're just pissed Pirate Software called you out for not having a plan like he does every idiot. Condescendingly.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's not how laws work.

It literally is. You pass a law that states that from 2035, cars must not emit greenhouse gases. The law doesn't state how that's accomplished. You can sell battery electric cars, you can sell hydrogen powered cars, you can even sell combustion engine cars as long as you make sure that they only burn biomass-based or green-hydrogen-based fuels.

Great. So the company shuts down the same day, declares bankruptcy, and is immune to further legislation because it's dead.

Okay, valid point, but that's the same for everything. It's literally how capitalism wants it to work. If somebody builds a house for you, messes up the process and then declares bankruptcy, you're fucked. If you want to change the system, fine, but that's not what this is about.

However, if those companies have to have a roadmap to work through after they stop providing the service for their game, it might make it even easier for a judge to just tell them to go through with it after they filed for bankruptcy. If anything, your corner case is at least a bit improved.

Cite one.

Release Server binaries.

Traditionally, you'd get a game - then nothing. No update. No bug fixes. No dlc. THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR.

Are you insane? Patches and expansions have been around since forever. Certainly way earlier than saas infrastructure. The ability to patch games has nothing to do with shitty service based business models.

Internet matchmaking in general was a free service included with certain titles. It can't be provided perpetually and you expecting them to basically open source their net code is absurd.

Nobody demands that. You're again arguing against your own strawman.

We have games that cannot work on a LAN model but you're intent on forcing that model on every game, even if it means killing those games or forcing them to not be made in the first place. That's what happens when you don't clearly outline legislation.

Bullshit. If a game requires a server that manages the connection between players then that server software can run on any computer just as well as the publisher's. There's no law of physics that requires EA to run a server just to have some jerks lust over loot boxes.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"You pass a law that states cars can't have greenhouse gasses by 2035"

Apples and oranges. Demanding cars transition to clean fuel alternatives is not the same as demanding game manufacturers design and implement systems that must be fully functional in an offline state. This would be akin to demanding nuclear reactors be retrofitted to use fusion by 2035. Despite it not being sustainable or commercially possible.

"Release server binaries"

How do you enforce that? Legally compel a company to publish the server binaries with every copy of the game? Are developers expected to eat the cost when copies are pirated and use third party servers? I love things like FiveM or private servers for dead MMORPGs but those are usually created as a niche for specific communities. Is every game expected to have third party servers? Sounds magical but under capitalism, that's an insane demand.

"The ability to patch games has been around since forever"

I'm not talking about the ability because yes it's always technically been possible, I'm talking in 9/10 cases you'd get a physical copy of a game and that was it. Unchanging. It shipped and it's done. You owned the disk, the data on that disk, and had full control over it aside from redistribution for profit. Actual updates that were delivered over the internet came around the same time as Steam and DRM programs.

I genuinely don't see how we can fully own our games while developers retain the legal ability to modify them. The law as it exists gives the consumer protections around owned property like that.

"You're arguing with strawmen"

I am deriving statements from insinuations you yourself are making. Consumer protections prevent companies from altering things they sell you. It's your property after the sale. It's possible you're unaware of that but it's an extremely strong reason why the industry made the switch. It wasn't just for giggles or greed.

"That server software can run on any computer just as well"

Okay explain to me what happens when Final Fantasy XI reaches end of life and all services that authenticate and host player data shut down? Who hosts that? Are developers who want massive open worlds going to be expected, by law, to program a world that plays itself? Bots for NPCs, taking the roles of players, pushing events automatically? I am begging for answers because it keeps feeling like I'm the only one trying to figure out what's going to happen to the games I play regularly.

Most online only games are online only because they focus on players interacting with other players on a grand scale. They're a social experience. Demands that it be playable offline defeats the purpose of it existing and we went over the server binaries thing. Nobody is going to jump at the chance to reset their progress for most of these games just for the shot to play it for however long this specific server is alive.

I hope I'm wrong but this entire thing seems like a well intentioned, misguided bomb intent to be dropped in the middle of the industry.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Demanding cars transition to clean fuel alternatives is not the same as demanding game manufacturers design and implement systems that must be fully functional in an offline state. This would be akin to demanding nuclear reactors be retrofitted to use fusion by 2035. Despite it not being sustainable or commercially possible.

Are you even listening to yourself? I'm pretty sure it's harder to redesign a car's engine and fuel system than it is to have counter strike call myshittyhomeserver.com instead of valvesmoneygenerator.com - and just the thought that you think it's about as complex to disable some stupid drm system (which has been done numerous times before by kids with too much time on their hands) as it is to design a fusion reactor is just insane.

But again: they do not have to be fully functional in an offline state. Just release the server if that's what's needed. You already sold me the game, you stopped providing the one part that you wanted to provide, now just give me that. Done.

How do you enforce that? Legally compel a company to publish the server binaries with every copy of the game?

No! No no no! It's after the game reached its eol! The idea is that the companies keep doing what they do, but once they're done they have some roadmap to leave the game in a functional state. Once they're done!

I'm talking in 9/10 cases you'd get a physical copy of a game and that was it.

Actual updates that were delivered over the internet came around the same time as Steam and DRM programs.

Bullshit. For games that ran from their ROMs (like snes-era) that was true because there was literally no way to modify them. But ever since they were used on media with write access, they got patched. You should just download a patch, point it to the directory where you installed the game and be done. If your connection sucked you'd buy a magazine that had patches on its CD or something.

Also, steam doesn't guarantee updates either. If a developer doesn't want to update their game, that's it. If a developer wants to update their game, great, that works without any such system as well. Can you force people to apply updates if the game isn't online? No. Does all of this have anything to do with the initiative? Not at all. This isn't about patching games that are still supported. This is about what happens long after the last patch was released.

Okay explain to me what happens when Final Fantasy XI reaches end of life and all services that authenticate and host player data shut down? Who hosts that?

That's not the question! If a developer decided to release server binaries after they shut down the service, at least I could host it. I could just run it locally, the community could come together to run an instance or whatever. This is about having such options, not about forcing publishers to keep hosting their stuff.

Are developers who want massive open worlds going to be expected, by law, to program a world that plays itself? Bots for NPCs, taking the roles of players, pushing events automatically? I am begging for answers because it keeps feeling like I'm the only one trying to figure out what's going to happen to the games I play regularly.

None of that is demanded! Nothing! And I have no idea where you're pulling those ideas from!

Massively multiplayer online worlds don't have to be populated by bots. Multiplayer games don't have to be redesigned. If a player opened a game to see a barren land, filled with no players and only dead npcs, that's fine. But hey, they could occasionally stroll through the forest that they met their spouse in or something. Just like looking at a painting in a museum with your friends is different from looking at it at home, this would be the case here, too. But at least you can still enjoy your painting, unlike the game that's been remotely disabled.

Most online only games are online only because they focus on players interacting with other players on a grand scale. They're a social experience. Demands that it be playable offline defeats the purpose of it existing and we went over the server binaries thing. Nobody is going to jump at the chance to reset their progress for most of these games just for the shot to play it for however long this specific server is alive.

This is true. Except it might not be nobody. We're talking about culture. Just like thousands of songs have been written to be forgotten, occasionally there are pieces that become culturally relevant. Sometimes even after the author dies. Imagine Franz Kafka writing his stories just to have Max Brod not publish them but lock them behind a shitty service that shut down after he wasn't profitable enough, immediately burning all copies that were sold so far.

This is not about keeping the original experience. This is about museums being able to show people works of art fifty years from now. This is about me showing my childhood memories to my kids. Would they see my old friend dragonhaxxor9999 run into battle with me? Certainly not. But would they get an idea and would I be nostalgic about it? Certainly. And why would the profitability of some stupid service be a reason not to have that? Just let me fucking run the software I paid money for! I own those bits! Have my processor execute them if I want to!

[–] exu@feditown.com 117 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Awesome! Now let's get the EU one as well, much closer than before now. (840'000)

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 67 points 1 week ago (14 children)

5 minutes later and it's 843k, almost 1k signatures per minute, not bad at all!

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

This is fucking bonkers.

I ran the math a few days ago, before this absolutely blew the fuck up, and I came to:

We'd need 11k sigs per day until July 31st.

... We're now apparently at more than double that and climbing exponentially.

Ho Lee Shit.

God DAMN has it been a while since I've seen something go actually, truly, organically viral.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] illi@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 week ago (5 children)

844k now. Wow. I wonder what caused the sudden surge? Or is it just that most momentum can be gain at the start and towards the end like with Kickstarters?

[–] Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world 48 points 1 week ago (4 children)

After Ross announced the campaign is dead a bunch of YouTubers (and media, I think?) picked up the topic and started spreading the word far and wide. This is the result.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz 106 points 1 week ago (1 children)

WHAAAT LETSGOOOOO DABABY. Thank you PirateSoftware for the publicity :3

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 76 points 1 week ago (12 children)

And fuck you too btw PirateSoftware :)

[–] rustyfish@lemmy.world 62 points 1 week ago (2 children)

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

Wait untill people realize that Ross Scott has had a running show, 'Freeman's Mind', going back to basically the fucking machinima days, where he just does a playthrough of all of Half Life and voices Gordon's inner thoughts.

Its still on his youtube channel!

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6PNZBb6b9LvDWpI-5CPYUxG1Rnm-vr9V

We are going to need another petition to get Ross an honorary title, a goddamned bust of an upraised fist in an HEV suit, clenching a crowbar, with 'For Exceptional Valor and Dutiful Service in the Defense of Video Gaming' emblazoned on its base.

Let the memes flow!

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Robin@lemmy.world 86 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Don't stop yet! They might still remove incorrectly filed entries.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] truxnell@aussie.zone 79 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Jesus what, a week or so ago this was dead in the water.

[–] seralth@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Nothing brings the internet together like hating a sexist self centered egotistical narcissist.

Seriously pirate has been an asshole for like 20 years. He's been banned from furry communities, kicked out of second life communities, rejected from eve communities.

Now people are realizing how much of a scum bag he is in the streamer community.

The only upside his asshole self centeredness has draw crazy attention to the partition.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Like the McRib and chlamydia, we're back baby!

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 65 points 1 week ago (8 children)

What's funny about this whole thing is it's almost like PirateSoftwares days in EVE Online when he invited everyone to Pochven space cause he thought he was hot shit and then proceeded to get his ass handed to him and he rage quit the game. He brought attention to something that ended up having the opposite effect of what he wanted.

Granted he was absolutely shit at EVE regardless of what he's told his audience. couldn't fit a ship to save his life, ran for CSM and no one voted for him, then rage quit when everyone and even his own corp proceeded to kick his teeth in.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Wow, I hadn't even heard of that particular story of Thor being an egotistical asshat.

I'd been looking into the WoW debacle, then stumbled into other stuff, but nope, that one's new to me.

[–] intrapt@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I was in his corp (my old one merged with his, I had no idea who he was for quite a while), and this... isn't exactly accurate. First, from what I remember, he left on okay terms with the corp.

There was a laundry list of issues with Pochven, a lot of them due to CCP just not bothering to fix issues that the players reported, and moving devs who did want to try and fix some of the issues to different areas of the game. It got to the point where it wasn't economically viable to live in the area, which reduced how many ships we could field, and the number of people even willing to join.

CCP also took forever to decide on how wormholes interacted with the region, and changed those interactions frequently. Some of these were great, for instance there was a point where most of the wormholes linked to wormhole systems, and it was a complicated (and dangerous) dance to get people in and out of the region undetected. CCP ended up going with the worst possible interaction: many wormholes directly linked to nullsec space, where massive alliances could easily find them and send massive fleets through with little effort.

He wasn't the only one to quit, to be honest I'm surprised he stayed for as long as he did given how he acts now.

Is Thor an egotistical narcissist? Absolutely. Was this a case of that? Not really

By the way, this is a statement he put out alongside the other two main groups in Pochven. I can tell you for a fact that 90+% of the players who spent most of their time in Pochven felt this move was absolutely justified*:

Edit* And the other ~10% disagreed with the destruction of the citadels, not the sentiment of the statement

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 48 points 1 week ago

Keep going! Who knows how many signatures will be ruled as invalid.

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 46 points 1 week ago (1 children)

SIGN THE PETITION DAMMIT

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I American't sign European petitions

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (22 children)

Both are past 100k now! I want to issue a special "fuck you" to all the idiot streamers that tried to kill SKG. And of course a special "go fuck yourself" to PirateSoftware and Asmongold for being fuckwit right wing tools for corporations. You have a special place in my heart as illiterate lapdogs to shitty corporations and right wing shills.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›