No, I talked about putting this energy into convincing others to vote with their wallets, not just "doing nothing". A boycott is an active campaign. It doesnt just mean not buying a product. It means not buying any associated product. Not even tolerating them in conversation.

I'm basing my opinion on how the commission has responded to similar successfully raised initiatives: "that's already covered by legislation and up to EU states to manage", "no that's something we cant support, but feel free to appeal endlessly", and in the most effective one, "committing to making a legislative proposal by 2023 but actually if thats ok we'll make it 2026 and I suppose then if legislation is agreed it may be in place within a decade" (end cage farming, which polls at 86% approval already in the EU).

What on earth makes you think an online petition, which has never led to any of the consumer friendly regulation you mention, has the 'highest' chance? Or that the alternative to a petition is doing nothing?

All of that regulation came primarily from legal cases.

You need to input a number matching a regex, the format for which is helpfully provided on the page.

Answering doesn't mean doing anything, and all they have to do is generally wave in the direction of the overwhelming popularity and profitability of the products compared to the online petition that 0.2% of the EU's adult population will have signed.

If the general public does not care, legislation will not follow. Filling out and promotinh a glorified change.org form is energy wasted on actually popularising your viewpoint instead of trying uselessly to get it in unpopularly.

You're claiming mutual exclusivity...

No, I'm not. I'm saying this is a waste of time. Like, writing six paragraphs that say nothing new level of wasting time.

Nobody said anything about AI or LLMs.

Flooding online petitions with bots isn't even a this-century thing let alone anything to do with AI hype.