Sure, but he has a whole website and a youtube channel, right?

I get that there's some tension between making the materials you present digestible to end users so they will support you and making them technically sound. That's fine.

But legislation does need to be technically feasible. I think the "games need to be able to run on consumer hardware, both server and client" bit is probably past that line. You can't just go "but old games ran on local servers and some games have been reverse engineered" and assume that means this is feasible across the board. And a piece of legislation would, in fact, have to be applicable across the board.

I think there's probably some way towards this. Maybe we need to just create some term of mandatory support, or a mandatory refund policy within some term. Maybe we need to carve some exception to copyright to ensure that abandonware owners can't go after server replacements, or some semi-public repository where users can contribute to paying for a server directly. I do think there needs to be better regulation for this.

"Your server needs to be able to run on the same machine as your client in all cases" is... probably not it? (EDIT: In the guy's defense, and after reviewing the full video in context, he does acknowledge the option of having a proper server at some cost, although his answer to dependencies and shared services still seems to be "well, I guess games need to be made fundamentally differently, then"). Some of the things in that FAQ (which I had already read, by the way) are also outright incorrect, objectively.

I will say for it that the petition itself is super vague and does not include many of these incorrect statements (beyond the characterization of losing functionality in a game as "robbing"). I think the vagueness here helps avoid some of the problems, and as a result I don't have a huge problem with the petition itself as presented.

How the guy visualizaes this working in the rest of his materials and through his online persona is a different story.