4 ms·

> I know plenty of repair shops who I trust to repair my car. Then you are extraordinarily lucky or possibly just too ignorant about cars to know when you're g

by least 5y ago

> I know plenty of repair shops who I trust to repair my car. Then you are extraordinarily lucky or possibly just too ignorant about cars to know when you're getting ripped off. Repair shops frequently rip people off and is not a solved problem. > We've solve the same problem when it comes to trusting someone to save our lives - doctors. We also have certifications and laws in place to protect people from entrusting their lives with someone who is saving our lives. No such requirements exist for a phone repairman. The AASP program is one such protection in place but is derided by that industry as being too expensive and not good enough. I'm not suggesting that we need to elevate the standards here, but to suggest that this is a solved problem is disingenuous. It's not solved because it's not that important in the grand scheme of things.

passivate 5y ago
We don't live in a perfect world, so to me its a solved problem for any reasonable definition. In any case, I don't understand what your comment has to do with right to repair. I am for right to repair and anyone suggesting Apple is correct to be anti-repair because "it's hard to know which repair shop to trust" is the one being disingenuous.
- least 5y ago
  > We don't live in a perfect world, so to me its a solved problem for any reasonable definition. It's not reasonable, though. Repair shops are notoriously shady because it depends on someone with generally lesser knowledge to trust a stranger to diagnose and fix issues for you. How are you to know that the repair they are suggesting is necessary? For a phone sure, you can clearly see that the screen is cracked and needs replacement, but what about less visible issues? It's a matter of trust with zero oversight or accountability. > In any case, I don't understand what your comment has to do with right to repair. I'm pointing out that it's not a solved issue. You're framing it as if it's uncomplicated or lacks nuance when it isn't. I think we need to very clearly define what "right to repair" means if you're going to ask me if I'm for against it. The problem is that you can ask ten different people what it means to them and get ten different answers. I'd say I'm pro right to repair in my personal definition of what that means, but I know for certain that it's not the same as others. I'm tired of 'movements' that don't concretely define their goals or purpose, particularly when it comes to legislation.
  - passivate 5y ago
    I disagree, I'm not framing it in any way that is special. No system is perfect, and that is a fact that's simultaneously obvious and boring. Everything we have ever done is flawed in some respect or another. There will always be edge cases or things we didn't think of. We can learn from our mistakes (hopefully), but we cannot eliminate them. I don't know what you consider "solved" when you use the term, but I can assure you that if its a man-made system, it will have flaws. Clearly we're not agreeing on the definition, and that is fair. No point arguing over that, so we'll just agree to disagree. We likely have more things we agree on than not anyway. To me, its actually very good that people have different opinions on 'right to repair'. Why do you wish to homogenize the term? There should be multiple voices at the table, including ones from the industry. I don't know what you mean by "don't concretely define their goals". Its possible you haven't gone out of your way to look but they are clearly defined here: https://www.repair.org/policy https://www.repair.org/policy https://www.repair.org/legislation https://www.repair.org/legislation https://www.repair.org/the-environment https://www.repair.org/the-environment
    - least 5y ago
      > Why do you wish to homogenize the term [right to repair]? I dislike terminology that guides people towards dichotomies that aren't really there. You're either for repairing or you're against it. You're pro-life, or anti-life. You're pro-choice or anti-choice. You're for black lives mattering or you're against it. These aren't real dichotomies but it's still used as a political tool to ostracize and shame people for holding positions that differ from your own, and are sufficiently nebulous enough to avoid real scrutiny, because you can always redefine what it means to suit what is politically convenient. "I am for right to repair and anyone suggesting Apple is correct to be anti-repair because 'it's hard to know which repair shop to trust' is the one being disingenuous." The way you structured this sentence already makes presumptions like Apple is definitely anti-repair. This may be your assertion but you've already framed the argument around this being absolutely true, which is disingenuous. You've created a false dichotomy.
      - passivate 5y ago

by least 5y ago

passivate 5y ago

We don't live in a perfect world, so to me its a solved problem for any reasonable definition. In any case, I don't understand what your comment has to do with right to repair. I am for right to repair and anyone suggesting Apple is correct to be anti-repair because "it's hard to know which repair shop to trust" is the one being disingenuous.

least 5y ago
> We don't live in a perfect world, so to me its a solved problem for any reasonable definition. It's not reasonable, though. Repair shops are notoriously shady because it depends on someone with generally lesser knowledge to trust a stranger to diagnose and fix issues for you. How are you to know that the repair they are suggesting is necessary? For a phone sure, you can clearly see that the screen is cracked and needs replacement, but what about less visible issues? It's a matter of trust with zero oversight or accountability. > In any case, I don't understand what your comment has to do with right to repair. I'm pointing out that it's not a solved issue. You're framing it as if it's uncomplicated or lacks nuance when it isn't. I think we need to very clearly define what "right to repair" means if you're going to ask me if I'm for against it. The problem is that you can ask ten different people what it means to them and get ten different answers. I'd say I'm pro right to repair in my personal definition of what that means, but I know for certain that it's not the same as others. I'm tired of 'movements' that don't concretely define their goals or purpose, particularly when it comes to legislation.
- passivate 5y ago
  I disagree, I'm not framing it in any way that is special. No system is perfect, and that is a fact that's simultaneously obvious and boring. Everything we have ever done is flawed in some respect or another. There will always be edge cases or things we didn't think of. We can learn from our mistakes (hopefully), but we cannot eliminate them. I don't know what you consider "solved" when you use the term, but I can assure you that if its a man-made system, it will have flaws. Clearly we're not agreeing on the definition, and that is fair. No point arguing over that, so we'll just agree to disagree. We likely have more things we agree on than not anyway. To me, its actually very good that people have different opinions on 'right to repair'. Why do you wish to homogenize the term? There should be multiple voices at the table, including ones from the industry. I don't know what you mean by "don't concretely define their goals". Its possible you haven't gone out of your way to look but they are clearly defined here: https://www.repair.org/policy https://www.repair.org/policy https://www.repair.org/legislation https://www.repair.org/legislation https://www.repair.org/the-environment https://www.repair.org/the-environment
  - least 5y ago
    > Why do you wish to homogenize the term [right to repair]? I dislike terminology that guides people towards dichotomies that aren't really there. You're either for repairing or you're against it. You're pro-life, or anti-life. You're pro-choice or anti-choice. You're for black lives mattering or you're against it. These aren't real dichotomies but it's still used as a political tool to ostracize and shame people for holding positions that differ from your own, and are sufficiently nebulous enough to avoid real scrutiny, because you can always redefine what it means to suit what is politically convenient. "I am for right to repair and anyone suggesting Apple is correct to be anti-repair because 'it's hard to know which repair shop to trust' is the one being disingenuous." The way you structured this sentence already makes presumptions like Apple is definitely anti-repair. This may be your assertion but you've already framed the argument around this being absolutely true, which is disingenuous. You've created a false dichotomy.
    - passivate 5y ago