4 ms·

“Right to repair” is a succinct label / rallying cry for what you have outlined. All of the discussion i have seen seems to settle more or less around what you’

“Right to repair” is a succinct label / rallying cry for what you have outlined. All of the discussion i have seen seems to settle more or less around what you’ve outlined. I would hope that the text of the law would codify those requirements and ensure the longevity of our devices. Perhaps you can expand your comment a bit , into a blog post and send it to policy makers ?

zdragnar 4y ago
When you simplify things, you lose meaning. Beware letting "right to repair" become the next "organic"!
- themitigating 4y ago
  There's USDA certified organic and they explain it all her https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-... I'm also not sure how you think we should refer to it?
  - greyhair 4y ago
    Oh there you go, spouting facts and information again.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    This misses my point. This all happened after the fact- organic was in wide use before it was regulated, and meant a great many different things. Here, right to repair (outside of NY) is not codified, and people are talking about it in many different ways, with different meanings. If we want to have it codified in a certain way, we cannot simply reduce what we are talking about to a catchphrase and hope that captures everything. We need to be specific in our lobbying of legislatures of what we want right to repair to mean. Per the USDA, organic farming does not mean zero synthetic pesticides (though they must be used with approval first). There are also different levels of organic: "100% Organic" applies to everything but the salt and water contents of a food item "Organic" means 95% of the non-salt and water ingredients must be organic "Made with organic" means only the specified ingredients are organic. If you don't want "Right to Repair" to mean that only 95% of your purchase is repairable, and touching the other 5% voids your warranty and lands you in jail for violating copyright, then now is the time to make 100% repairable be the definition while it is still not legally codified.
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  The issue of how simple is too simple is thorny for activism. Nobody wants to have to start from zero and re-litigate all the details every time they want to explain their cause to a random person off the street. And no random person off the street wants to hear an excruciatingly long lecture on the consumer electronics industry when they ask an activist about their cause. Slogans and acronyms are useful. But it's still getting people to understand what specific policies do and don't follow the spirit of the slogan.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
I think we all know the main issues here on HN. And what a complex tangle of interests and compromises it really is. Yes codification is a nightmare. I'm no lawyer, but it's clearly a challenge that a lot of good minds need to sit down and think through. At the end of the day, we can't keep trashing the planet for a little bit of extra corporate profit and consumer vanity. Making durable, repairable and reusable technology isn't rocket science. We managed it for centuries before the insanity of late capitalism took centre stage in the past 30 years or so. FWIW, I did an interview with Gerry McGovern on World Wide Waste where we talked at length about some of the issues [1]. Hopefully these small efforts eventally get traction and visibility by those who make decisions. [1] https://podcasts.apple.com/mu/podcast/andy-farnell-perils-of-e-waste-and-benefits/id1504443346 https://podcasts.apple.com/mu/podcast/andy-farnell-perils-of...

zdragnar 4y ago

When you simplify things, you lose meaning. Beware letting "right to repair" become the next "organic"!

themitigating 4y ago
There's USDA certified organic and they explain it all her https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-... I'm also not sure how you think we should refer to it?
- greyhair 4y ago
  Oh there you go, spouting facts and information again.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  This misses my point. This all happened after the fact- organic was in wide use before it was regulated, and meant a great many different things. Here, right to repair (outside of NY) is not codified, and people are talking about it in many different ways, with different meanings. If we want to have it codified in a certain way, we cannot simply reduce what we are talking about to a catchphrase and hope that captures everything. We need to be specific in our lobbying of legislatures of what we want right to repair to mean. Per the USDA, organic farming does not mean zero synthetic pesticides (though they must be used with approval first). There are also different levels of organic: "100% Organic" applies to everything but the salt and water contents of a food item "Organic" means 95% of the non-salt and water ingredients must be organic "Made with organic" means only the specified ingredients are organic. If you don't want "Right to Repair" to mean that only 95% of your purchase is repairable, and touching the other 5% voids your warranty and lands you in jail for violating copyright, then now is the time to make 100% repairable be the definition while it is still not legally codified.
actionablefiber 4y ago
The issue of how simple is too simple is thorny for activism. Nobody wants to have to start from zero and re-litigate all the details every time they want to explain their cause to a random person off the street. And no random person off the street wants to hear an excruciatingly long lecture on the consumer electronics industry when they ask an activist about their cause. Slogans and acronyms are useful. But it's still getting people to understand what specific policies do and don't follow the spirit of the slogan.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

I think we all know the main issues here on HN. And what a complex tangle of interests and compromises it really is. Yes codification is a nightmare. I'm no lawyer, but it's clearly a challenge that a lot of good minds need to sit down and think through. At the end of the day, we can't keep trashing the planet for a little bit of extra corporate profit and consumer vanity. Making durable, repairable and reusable technology isn't rocket science. We managed it for centuries before the insanity of late capitalism took centre stage in the past 30 years or so. FWIW, I did an interview with Gerry McGovern on World Wide Waste where we talked at length about some of the issues [1]. Hopefully these small efforts eventally get traction and visibility by those who make decisions. [1] https://podcasts.apple.com/mu/podcast/andy-farnell-perils-of-e-waste-and-benefits/id1504443346 https://podcasts.apple.com/mu/podcast/andy-farnell-perils-of...