5 ms·
I fear that that will be "Californiaed" like with the prop 65 label. The intention was to inform the consumer if a product was dangerous, but due to California
by crowf 6y ago
I fear that that will be "Californiaed" like with the prop 65 label. The intention was to inform the consumer if a product was dangerous, but due to California being California, that label is on basically every product and that label has now lost its meaning.
- andyfleming 6y agoI think a repairability label is less likely to get bucketed into yes or no. A score might be manipulated or skewed. That said, something like a nutrition or privacy label might be a better fit. For example, if something has a battery, can it be replaced by the user or even replaced at all.
- hayksaakian 6y agoThe equivalent for the california labels of "this might give you cancer" would be something like "you might be able to replace the battery" At least I would hope the french scores / standards would be objective enough to be useful. if california had a "cancer scale" or something it would be more useful than it is today. Maybe that lead paint is "grade a cancer" but your bed sheets are only a "grade d cancer" i dunno.
- matkoniecz 6y agoIt seems much easier to demonstrate repariability over "we are 100% sure that nothing in this product causes cancer or increases its risk".
- cowsandmilk 6y agoI view this as more similar to energystar in the us, where I can see efficiency of appliances. Or mandatory fuel economy labeling.
- syshum 6y agoThe key to prevent that is to make it something like the IoT label [1] that has been proposed for several years That was more around security of the devices, but I would like to see a label that covered 4 parameters 1. Security 2. Repariblity 3. Openness / Cloud Dependency / etc 4. Privacy [1]https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/news/2020/05/27-iot-labels-consumers.html https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/news/2020/05/27-iot-labels-consume...