13 ms·

Hard to imagine any reasonable individual being opposed to this, regardless of politics!

smallmancontrov 2y ago
> reasonable If your net worth is high enough that anti-consumer policy pumps your assets harder than it dumps your consumption, it's rational. A huge jerk move, sure, and arguably unreasonable on those grounds, but it's rational. Unfortunately the $600B sponsor and $6B president are faaaar on the other side of the invisible net worth boundary where that starts to be the case, so I wouldn't expect RtR to get much traction, but who knows. There is enough chaos to make it worth a try even if it "ought" to fail on grounds of "government by the rich, for the rich."
- gosub100 2y ago
  You don't expect laws that are already passed to get much traction because the president is rich and has rich friends?
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    There's a gigantic map in TFA that shows what has and hasn't passed, did you even so much as glance at the article?
    - gosub100 2y ago
      It's irrelevant. The president doesn't do the passing. He's not a dictator. This isn't a tribalism partisan issue, as much as you seem to want to make it. I could point to the blue state of Massachusetts which, immediately after passing RTR through popular support, immediately had its democratic government strip all the teeth out of the bill, at the request of several big corporations. What do you have to say about that? Is that Trump's fault too? Even though it happened when Biden was in office?
      - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
        Maybe the Supreme Court stacked with his allies will declare RtR is unconstitutional. We lost abortion and gay marriage is on the chopping block. The system is being gamed very hard right now, and they've been lying to you for years.
      - phs318u 2y ago
        > He's not a dictator. Not quite yet. An admirer of dictators. He's a wannabe dictator. Stacking the decks with loyalists and purging those that don't roll over. Never failing to take an opportunity to divide, to tear down, to fabricate, to create chaos for the 99%. Constantly crossing lines that would've been unthinkable for any other president - including previous Republican candidates. Offtopic: I often think of the alternate universe in which John McCain won the Republican nomination over Donald Trump. What a different world we'd be in! Good chance Biden wouldn't have won in 2020. Good chance Russia wouldn't have had an opportunity to invade Ukraine a second time.
        gosub100 2y ago
        I think if Bernie had been on the ticket in '16 we would be living in a different world.
- barbazoo 2y ago
  > If your net worth is high enough that anti-consumer policy pumps your assets harder than it dumps your consumption, it's rational. A huge jerk move, sure, and arguably unreasonable on those grounds, but it's rational. Sounds like narcissistic personality disorder to me. Why are some of us worshipping these people again?
asacrowflies 2y ago
It has been politicized heavily by maga type crowds who don't really know what it means.... I have had ppl at the barbershop call me a socialist because I wanted right to repair...
- 98codes 2y ago
  I imagine bringing up the current situation with John Deere and how the law would enshrine the right to repair the tractor that you bought with your own money would go farther than most arguments with those folks.
  - hoten 2y ago
    It's an interesting idea. But I like to think if they owned equipment like that, they'd already be on the side of right-to-repair. Farmers are smart businessmen and this is an obviously needless extra cost. But for the non-farmers, perhaps it'd really sway tribal mindsets to understand people "similar to them" (more so than elite techies...) benefit too.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    He's just advertising the filter bubble he lives in. Everyone wants owners to be able to be able to access the info they need to repair things. About the only gripe you'll hear from the most hardline libertarians is "that's not the government's job" and even then it's usually prefixed with "this is nice but". Occasionally some Karen who hasn't really put much thought into it will screech about "but what it someone repairs something wrong and makes it unsafe" as if supposed professionals don't do that all the time and right to repair isn't just as much about enabling individual professionals as it is owners.
    - asacrowflies 2y ago
      I did receive the "it's not the governments job" speech but they had no rebuttal when I asked about border agents seizing official refurb apple parts as "counterfeit" or Microsoft jailing someone trying to keep old PCs out of landfill... Or the concept of IP as a whole and the John Deere tractor example someone else replied to me with in this thread . As if I'm blind or stupid and wouldn't try the obvious?? You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason into
CivBase 2y ago
Reasonable people are sometimes lead to believe that repairability is counter to safety (i.e. "if an amature does the repair wrong, they could hurt themselves or the owner"), security (i.e. "if we let people know how it works, it'll be easier to hack"), technilogical advancement (i.e. "smartphones would have to be chunky bricks with no water resistance if we designed them to be easily opened for repair"), consumer protection (i.e. "unauthorized repair technicians are unaccountable and might do something unscrupulous to your device"), value (i.e. "if companies have to design for repair and provide support for repair, then those costs get passed onto consumers"), among other things. I don't find these arguments compelling and I think there is plenty of precedent for repairability being best for consumers. But they come up a lot - especially from anti-R2R lobbiests. Our society has also been trained to be consumers, always throwing away old stuff in favor of the latest and greatest. When something breaks, the first thought is usally "how much will it cost to replace this?" instead of "how do I fix it?" Everything is treated as disposible, so there isn't much motivation for the average person to care about repair.
- p0w3n3d 2y ago
  +ecology (i.e. "the new device uses 1kW less energy per month so you shouldn't even try fixing the old one")
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    They don't use that one very much because the difference in energy efficiency between a five year old device and a ten year old device is generally negligible, whereas the ecological consequences of throwing away an entire device and having to build a whole new one are something they don't want to be reminding people about by bringing it up.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
    That might be the strongest argument against it. I would really like total control of my car's ECU, but I know the most popular use of such a power would be to circumvent emissions controls and maximize MPG or HP.
- 2y ago
stevage 2y ago
I think there are reasonable arguments against it. It increases costs of selling products, reduces profitability. I think the benefits outweigh those costs, but the argument isn't unreasonable.
- azemetre 2y ago
  It needs to be explicitly shown how and why it increases costs because if anything it feels like the opposite to me, especially when companies use proprietary pieces and hiding schematics rather than open standards and common configurations.
  - tcfhgj 2y ago
    fewer sold products, less economy of scale, more cost
    - Retric 2y ago
      Components not just products have economies of scale. Dell is currently better off buying the same RAM etc used by other computer manufacturers.
      - seanw444 2y ago
        This, and also, so what if the price of the end product goes up? You wouldn't feel the need to buy a new phone so often if it was more sensible to repair them, which would very likely more than make up for the price increase.
        tcfhgj 2y ago
        unlikely: people cost much more (repairing vs automated manufacturing) second: even if it may make up for it, the manufacturers profits still will be reduced
      - tcfhgj 2y ago
        more products -> more components replacing some components means fewer components sold overall, because whole products 'replace' just all components
_joel 2y ago
Unless your name's John Deere.
whoitwas 2y ago
You must not have encountered a John Deere engineer in the wild.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

> reasonable If your net worth is high enough that anti-consumer policy pumps your assets harder than it dumps your consumption, it's rational. A huge jerk move, sure, and arguably unreasonable on those grounds, but it's rational. Unfortunately the $600B sponsor and $6B president are faaaar on the other side of the invisible net worth boundary where that starts to be the case, so I wouldn't expect RtR to get much traction, but who knows. There is enough chaos to make it worth a try even if it "ought" to fail on grounds of "government by the rich, for the rich."

gosub100 2y ago
You don't expect laws that are already passed to get much traction because the president is rich and has rich friends?
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  There's a gigantic map in TFA that shows what has and hasn't passed, did you even so much as glance at the article?
  - gosub100 2y ago
    It's irrelevant. The president doesn't do the passing. He's not a dictator. This isn't a tribalism partisan issue, as much as you seem to want to make it. I could point to the blue state of Massachusetts which, immediately after passing RTR through popular support, immediately had its democratic government strip all the teeth out of the bill, at the request of several big corporations. What do you have to say about that? Is that Trump's fault too? Even though it happened when Biden was in office?
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
      Maybe the Supreme Court stacked with his allies will declare RtR is unconstitutional. We lost abortion and gay marriage is on the chopping block. The system is being gamed very hard right now, and they've been lying to you for years.
    - phs318u 2y ago
      > He's not a dictator. Not quite yet. An admirer of dictators. He's a wannabe dictator. Stacking the decks with loyalists and purging those that don't roll over. Never failing to take an opportunity to divide, to tear down, to fabricate, to create chaos for the 99%. Constantly crossing lines that would've been unthinkable for any other president - including previous Republican candidates. Offtopic: I often think of the alternate universe in which John McCain won the Republican nomination over Donald Trump. What a different world we'd be in! Good chance Biden wouldn't have won in 2020. Good chance Russia wouldn't have had an opportunity to invade Ukraine a second time.
      - gosub100 2y ago
        I think if Bernie had been on the ticket in '16 we would be living in a different world.
barbazoo 2y ago
> If your net worth is high enough that anti-consumer policy pumps your assets harder than it dumps your consumption, it's rational. A huge jerk move, sure, and arguably unreasonable on those grounds, but it's rational. Sounds like narcissistic personality disorder to me. Why are some of us worshipping these people again?

asacrowflies 2y ago

It has been politicized heavily by maga type crowds who don't really know what it means.... I have had ppl at the barbershop call me a socialist because I wanted right to repair...

98codes 2y ago
I imagine bringing up the current situation with John Deere and how the law would enshrine the right to repair the tractor that you bought with your own money would go farther than most arguments with those folks.
- hoten 2y ago
  It's an interesting idea. But I like to think if they owned equipment like that, they'd already be on the side of right-to-repair. Farmers are smart businessmen and this is an obviously needless extra cost. But for the non-farmers, perhaps it'd really sway tribal mindsets to understand people "similar to them" (more so than elite techies...) benefit too.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  He's just advertising the filter bubble he lives in. Everyone wants owners to be able to be able to access the info they need to repair things. About the only gripe you'll hear from the most hardline libertarians is "that's not the government's job" and even then it's usually prefixed with "this is nice but". Occasionally some Karen who hasn't really put much thought into it will screech about "but what it someone repairs something wrong and makes it unsafe" as if supposed professionals don't do that all the time and right to repair isn't just as much about enabling individual professionals as it is owners.
  - asacrowflies 2y ago
    I did receive the "it's not the governments job" speech but they had no rebuttal when I asked about border agents seizing official refurb apple parts as "counterfeit" or Microsoft jailing someone trying to keep old PCs out of landfill... Or the concept of IP as a whole and the John Deere tractor example someone else replied to me with in this thread . As if I'm blind or stupid and wouldn't try the obvious?? You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason into

CivBase 2y ago

Reasonable people are sometimes lead to believe that repairability is counter to safety (i.e. "if an amature does the repair wrong, they could hurt themselves or the owner"), security (i.e. "if we let people know how it works, it'll be easier to hack"), technilogical advancement (i.e. "smartphones would have to be chunky bricks with no water resistance if we designed them to be easily opened for repair"), consumer protection (i.e. "unauthorized repair technicians are unaccountable and might do something unscrupulous to your device"), value (i.e. "if companies have to design for repair and provide support for repair, then those costs get passed onto consumers"), among other things. I don't find these arguments compelling and I think there is plenty of precedent for repairability being best for consumers. But they come up a lot - especially from anti-R2R lobbiests. Our society has also been trained to be consumers, always throwing away old stuff in favor of the latest and greatest. When something breaks, the first thought is usally "how much will it cost to replace this?" instead of "how do I fix it?" Everything is treated as disposible, so there isn't much motivation for the average person to care about repair.

p0w3n3d 2y ago
+ecology (i.e. "the new device uses 1kW less energy per month so you shouldn't even try fixing the old one")
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  They don't use that one very much because the difference in energy efficiency between a five year old device and a ten year old device is generally negligible, whereas the ecological consequences of throwing away an entire device and having to build a whole new one are something they don't want to be reminding people about by bringing it up.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  That might be the strongest argument against it. I would really like total control of my car's ECU, but I know the most popular use of such a power would be to circumvent emissions controls and maximize MPG or HP.
2y ago

stevage 2y ago

I think there are reasonable arguments against it. It increases costs of selling products, reduces profitability. I think the benefits outweigh those costs, but the argument isn't unreasonable.

azemetre 2y ago
It needs to be explicitly shown how and why it increases costs because if anything it feels like the opposite to me, especially when companies use proprietary pieces and hiding schematics rather than open standards and common configurations.
- tcfhgj 2y ago
  fewer sold products, less economy of scale, more cost
  - Retric 2y ago
    Components not just products have economies of scale. Dell is currently better off buying the same RAM etc used by other computer manufacturers.
    - seanw444 2y ago
      This, and also, so what if the price of the end product goes up? You wouldn't feel the need to buy a new phone so often if it was more sensible to repair them, which would very likely more than make up for the price increase.
      - tcfhgj 2y ago
        unlikely: people cost much more (repairing vs automated manufacturing) second: even if it may make up for it, the manufacturers profits still will be reduced
    - tcfhgj 2y ago
      more products -> more components replacing some components means fewer components sold overall, because whole products 'replace' just all components

_joel 2y ago

Unless your name's John Deere.

whoitwas 2y ago

You must not have encountered a John Deere engineer in the wild.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]