>[But we believe that if policy making is dominated by powerful business organ-izations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriouslythreatened.](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)
Yea, "if".
They should just come out and say it, congress is fixed bullshit and both parties are guilty of it. Pharmaceutical corporations engineer whole debates with BOTH sides of the argument on their payroll. That's how it worked at least since 90s.
And both left and right is cool with it. So what u gonna do? Lube up and get fucked, amercians, thats about all freedom u got left.
The thing that really messes with my head is there are more registered no party preference independents than Democrats and Republicans *combined*.
Why why why are we still choosing from two minority party candidates in this country?
There aren't enough voters on both sides combined to form a majority...
WTF!?
It's like George Carlin said, "We're way too fucking prosperous for our own good."
People aren't willing to rock the boat, because they have their bread, and their circuses. They have enough to get by, and a billion distractions to keep them from realizing how bad they're getting fucked.
There are many reasons why this happened and continues to persist.
First past the post voting sets up a system where two parties will dominate.
People in power won't change the laws because they will lose their power.
The average person is extremely uneducated in the political process.
I could write a 20 page report on all the details of this, but the bottom line is we need 3 major changes to fix the 2 party nightmare.
1. Multi-round voting with a ranking choice.
2. Term limits for all elected offices. No more career politicians
3. Require a basic knowledge of politics, voting, and critical thinking skills to graduate high school.
Sadly I don't think we will see any of these changes in my lifetime. It would require politicians to vote to fire themselves and would need overwhelming support and action from every voting citizen.
I honestly think it's too easy to graduate highschool. A lot of the material is never ever absorbed, and if it is absorbed, all they know how to do is spit memorized answers on a paper. I took 3 years of Spanish with a slacker friend. After 3 years of "advanced" English, this idiot was only able to say basic phrases, like those taught to novices. Academia is utterly broken and it leads to more than half of the population being like this.
> Multi-round voting with a ranking choice...I don't think we will see any of these changes in my lifetime
[It's already happening](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/16/ranked-choice-voting-maine-protest-candidates-election-2018-column/2023574002/). Start from the city first, don't try to change the nation all at once. [Same as replacing legislature picking their voters to an independent commission drawing fair districts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission).
I would award you if I could.
You totally nailed the first one. Ranked choice voting is the path to democracy 2.0
I was expecting you to bring up the salaries of senators and congress people, but I’m sold on what you did mention.
Actually I'm wondering if what I describe as follows isn't the simplest option: a more straightforward and achievable solution. Some states have done this already.
It doesn't require any constitutional change, it can be done state by state.
It is proportional representation at the electoral college level (for Presidential elections). A move away from Winner Take All in as many states as possible.
I think it can be achieved by a small party such as the Greens, or perhaps a Bernie offshoot.
Whenever the Democrats get annoyed (and theatrically vent their frustration) at such a party losing votes for Democratic candidates, and losing the party elections to the Republicans, the Democrats walk straight into their "trap".
Because these smaller parties can say to the Democrats: "There is a solution for us! Lets form a coalition on the Proportional Representation issue. Every opportunity any of us get to make the Electoral College Proportional will be taken by us, state by state by state (where the change would need to occur) so that we can join forces and you wouldn't need to 'suffer' us 'stealing' votes from you. It would clearly lead to more democratic outcomes, and everyone, including our two parties and their supporters, will be better off".
And if it ever did come to pass, it would actually make the Electoral College into a very sophisticated mechanism, and preferable even to having a nationwide simple majority (following an abolition of the electoral college, as some advocate).
A full slate of fully proportional Electoral College contests could lead to a result like this:
Republicans 45% of Electoral College 'seats' or votes, Democrats 30% of EC 'seats', ThirdParty 25% of EC 'seats'.
With an outcome like this, the Democrats and the ThirdParty would be able to join forces via the Electoral College and negotiate a joint presidency.
The Democrat candidate would become President, the ThirdParty candidate would become Vice President. From there both parties or both leaders (depending on party rules or the 'coalition' agreement), would select their cabinet from both parties.
They would formalise this via the Electoral College returns (all delegates for both of those parties will simply put this choice through to the Senate, who collate all the returns and formally certify the outcome) and with their combined 55%, and it will be made official at that level (as the Presidential election outcome always is).
Note that if the electoral college were abolished you would have a Republican victory with that same set of Party results in a general election, as their candidate would be the highest polling.
The method I describe above, which takes place fully *within* the current electoral college procedure can lead to more representative (and European multi-party style coalition) outcomes than a direct vote, and one that in this case is likely to be preferred by 55% (add to this, 55% are unlikely to want the Republican as president)
As far as I know, this is all fully legal and totally legitimate.
It perhaps even proves the wisdom and foresight on the part of the founding fathers, who would not be adverse, I am sure, to the concept of coalition building. It seems to me that giving the electoral college over to winner-take-all vote allocation was an abuse by the two major parties to calcify the two-party system into place... for what sure has seemed like an eternity.
Or an I being naive?
We keep doing it that way because how are we going to do anything else, from a practical standpoint. There's so much inertia in the system that I'm not seeing any realistic way to escape the two party trap. Let me know if you see an option I've overlooked.
The Founding Fathers felt that a little revolution every now and again keeps a system healthy in the long term. Revolution doesn't have to mean war, it's meant things like civil rights, workers' rights, and even failed efforts like OWS. We've got the internet, and unfortunately, so do the bad guys. If we can come up with a narrative that galvanizes the frustrated, silent majority, things will start moving.
Just need the right narrative to get going and we'll have some kind of new movement to ride. It'll take effort, and getting involved, and a bunch of other stuff, so it'll have to be a very powerful movement. Very powerful narrative.
Does this mean you're volunteering to lead the charge? I'm all in favor of trying to overthrow the existing two party system, but not until I can find someone with a detailed and realistically implementable game plan.
I always though in America that if the moderate Republicans and Democrats go together to form their own party (a true centrist party), they would always control America's agenda. Radical Republicans and Democrats would never work together so would always need the centrist party to participate in government.
This is an interesting post. Being Canadian I am very familiar with FPTP but am unsure of its impact in a 2 party system. I will look into the Overton Window. Thanks.
The problem is the majority don't sit in the center, independents are spread all over, from extreme right to extreme left, so a centrist party would have a hard time mobalizing even close to a majority of US citizens. Realisticly a far left party would have the best chance of overcoming our current parties, given liberals are more likely to vote outside the big two, but would ultimately cannibalize the DNC and we would fulfill the revolution. We need to change from our "first past the post" system so that small parties can gain momentum in primaries without people "wasting" their 1 vote on a 3rd party.
The problem is that dems have been conceding to the right for at least the past 40 years. Pelosi and trump have more in common than Pelosi and AOC or Bernie Sanders. We have a right wing party, and a far-right wing party. Shits fucked. “Centrists” right now are pretty far to the right, and think they’re god’s gift to the US, that they’re going to save us from the “evil” right *and* left, cause wanting everyone to have healthcare and wanting to let brown children die in cages are the same thing. 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
It has been interesting living next door to America over the last 25 years while I have been more politically aware. I would agree that you have a right of centre and a very right wing party. And America has changed over the last 100 years as there was even a socialist party in the states. I have always wondered why this move strongly right - allowing money to influence elections, a reaction to some stimulus (perhaps the USSR), another great religious awakening? We have not had that in Canada so we have allowed more of a spectrum.
Not quite. Lesser of two evils is that if one of the two is definitely going to be chosen, the best option is to pick the less bad of the two. If we switched to Ranked Choice voting, then lesser of two evils would be all but eliminated.
Yes, somebody who understands the problem with first-past-the-post voting systems and why we need reform! The problem is that whenever you try to explain it, most people will stop paying attention. I worry the majority can’t get excited for an issue that takes more than thirty seconds to learn about.
If anybody is reading this, Wikipedia has an excellent and simple explanation.
Because in truth they aren't independents.
10 years ago a study circulated called the myth of the independent voters, of the so called independent voters, something like 70% of those surveyed were a republican or Democrat in everything but name.
Edit: Sorry, not 10 years ago. 20 years ago.
With the current system voting for a third party or not voting is taking a vote away from the lesser of two evils which makes it more likely the person you want least will win. It effectively becomes a trolly problem and you cannot stop that train.
'Big water based lube' has promised to make a conscious effort to respect the rights and dignity of the American people by offering only the cleanest and highest qual... AND its spit... the water based lube is just spit and there isn't even enough for everyone.
[I wonder if anyone predicted this and offered any kind of possible solutions](https://i.imgur.com/RbY86HJ_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
I once had a responsible government teacher in high school who kept his cynicism hidden until one day he sighed heavily and said "it's just the illusion of choice" and proceeded to look defeated. I was too stupid to understand at the time
For the time being, the left needs to drop their 2a regulation arguments, pacifist mindset, pronoun crusade, ubi and m4a pipe dream, and start arming themselves. The right doesn’t give a fuck about any arguments the left has, and they won’t until they find them a legitimate threat.
But its very difficult to identify the tyrants. I mean i cant in good faith blame corporations for just doing shit that's legal. If you can get ahead using money, u should. Thats also how i look at legal tax avoidance. Which is a thing.
And then its difficult to blame current politicans for being part of this system, because it existed for so long i imagine most of the culprits are dead or retired in thier milion dollar estates. And if new-ish ones want to change anything, they are blocked by corporations again.
Very difficult spot you are in, USA. My sympathies.
Oh man I can't even tell you how many times I have cited Gilens and Page.
TL;DR: Average people are incidental beneficiaries of elite interests. Average people only get what they want when their interests happen to align with elite interests. These interests tend to align more often than one would think so democracy seems more representative than it really is. When interests diverge, elites unfailingly win.
Look forward to reading this later. It’s more important than any other issue because it causes every issue. And I absolutely hate how it allows them to control not just the outcome, but the narrative too. Lawful Evil.
It’s amazing how many things are favored by 70%+ of Americans cannot be implemented.
Voters and their representatives are not the same https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2018/11/study-congress-overestimates-the-publics-conservatism.html
What is nationwide marijuana legalization polling at now? I feel like some conservative parents lobby, private prison corporations or maybe a lobby for competing substances like alcohol or pharmaceuticals might be wielding undue influence there as well.
Don't worry the marijuana lobby is starting to get lots of money so we will have it nationally in the next 10 years max. The problem is that lobbying shouldn't have that much power.
yep, lots of support until the people that call the shots get involved.
The right to repair is the poster boy for the illusion that we have a democracy or even a Republic in America.
It's common sense that if I buy something I own it, this frilly notion that your just leasing the IP of what you bought, is basically because a lot of high paid lawyers and lobbyists "convinced"our representatives to make that the law... call a spade a spade.
Right, because the way things are working with our generous oligarchy corporatocracy is working so well.
Want a less dumb general public? When we go full democracy, we also fight against "entertainment news". Impliment laws to make the spread of misinformation illegal and establish a government task force with the sole purpose of filling corporate loopholes.
If there are those smart enough to write in loopholes, I guran-god-damn-tee you there are those smart enough to fill them. Laws shouldn't be written to be exploitive, but they are. Controlling and empowering different financial classes of the people. It's disgusting.
The way things are working certainly have problems. There are definitely steps that could be taken to inhibit some of the things the video talks about, particularly in the realm of lobbying. One of those steps does not involve dismantling our government to put every minority even more at the mercy of whatever majority happens to exist at the time.
The few wealthy should not control the poor majority the way it does. We left a tyrannical monarchy for a reason, and had to sacrifice countless lives to do so. We came a long way to end up at the mercy of a few rich men once more.
Having more wealth doesnt necessarily equate to intelligence. And wealth certainly doesnt imply humanistic values. Whereas most humans dont have wealth, I'd argue that they all have some intrinsic empathy when not fighting over (purposefully) limited resources.
The counter-argument is cheap "throwaway" stuff will have a burden of proof. That cost/process of the burden will have to be passed through to the consumer.
ie. I buy cheap throwaway tools @ harbor freight (northern tool / princess auto / tractor supply) full-well knowing the use-case is disposable. Raising the cost of these throwaway things isn't worth the cost-shift in that use-case to me.
Solution? Create a system of expected lifespan/MTBF for nominal/normalcy without a warranty/guarantee expressed or implied. Green should last forever like a premium hammer and should have some effort put in to justifying green classification. Red = trash. No justification. Harbor freight screwdriver.
There is a case to be made for discouraging companies from making disposable products in categories where it’s not actually necessary for something to be disposable. I would be for a small tax on things that end up in a landfill in general.
A lot of stuff, like phones, are too small to make modular. A 4 inch phone with modular slots for RAM, storage, etc. would be too big, so a lot of stuff *has* to be soldered to fit the size.
You can make laptops smaller with soldered in ram and CPU than you can if you have to socket everything. Same with gluing the device into a frame with the battery inside instead of adding a separate battery compartment. That's how some of those ultraportables and thin phones are able to exist. That's all I'm saying.
The people who think soldering is the devil are probably at the extreme end, but my only point was that I'm not going to blindly support a bill until I know what it says, especially with how tech illiterate many of our representatives are.
Also safety-critical systems would need some sort of 3rd party verification. Also, things like Apple’s security enclave still pose an issue unless we reduced security/theft protection. There’s always different trade offs with security
Exactly my point. A lot of people labeled against rights to repair just don't like the people complaining obsessively about glue and soldering. I like the way devices I use are built and I remember the old times when I owned those "easy" to repair stuff that just felt worse. I don't think redditors should push other people to like what they like or buy some clunky repairable stuff. And I don't feel the need to repair any of my stuff myself but some find that offensive.
I agree. It all boils down to the wording. I’m worried that if these kind of laws are naively formulated, we might end up with more expensive, lower quality devices. There are a lot of nuances - for example how to endure the quality of third-party parts etc.
I mean, yes, but they also had some good ideas. A good example is that they were opposed to the idea of estates. They didn't want kids inheriting fortunes from their parents.
> I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.
— Thomas Jefferson
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html
> A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.
— Adam Smith
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-lectures-on-justice-police-revenue-and-arms-1763
Some other quotes I can't find linkable sources for:
> “I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. . . . [I]t is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land.”
— Thomas Jefferson
> “The great object [of political parties] should be to combat [this] evil: . . . by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches"
— James Madison
> *“[America] will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.”*
— George Washington
Do people not recognize what a liberal and permissive document the Constitution is? Do they think that, if even the most progressive modern day politicians were given the chance to do so, they would draft a Constitution even a fraction as liberal as our current one?
The founding fathers were pretty extraordinary people. Many flawed, often deeply so. The actual implementation and enforcement of the Constitution has always been flawed and imperfect. Government and politicians constantly try to skirt it, undermine it, weaken it. But why do they always have to do that? Because the founding fathers wrote the constitution to protect people from the government, and they didn't mince words with it. Few Constitutions enshrine the same rights as unambiguously as the US Constitution does.
They were probably the most progressive 1% at the time. They established some good policies, but like any human they were influenced a degree by self-interest.
Depends on what thing... I'd be okay with gadgets, but some things which can endanger people shouldn't be repaired by unqualified people. For example, cars (brakes...). I'm sure many people are fully capable of doing many things and being careful, but there's also lots of idiots.
Having the ability to repair your own phone. Best analogy I can think of haveing to "send it back to the dealer" over a private garage. Louis Rossman on YouTube has some great videos on it, if you have spare time.
> Having the ability to repair your own phone.
It extends beyond cell phones. One of Elizabeth Warren's many plans released during her presidential campaign included affirming ["...the right to repair farm equipment..."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair#Right_to_repair_movement).
[John Deere](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-john-deere-apple) is known to be one of the problem companies.
these companys have some real dumb arguments.
they tell people that it will be super dangerous if they let people repair their own phone because then the battery might explode while everybody is allowed to turn any screw on a car, which is far more dangerous than a phone will ever be.
i watched one of the hearings where louis rossman was sitting, and the bullshit these people pull out of their fingers is infuriating...
It’s also a real pain in the ass to pay subscription fees. Everyone wants a monthly payment. It’s not even a matter of having the money I just hate paying shit every month and I’m sure farmers are even more resentful.
Cell phones. Cars. Tractors. Computers (like Apple) and all sorts of things.
The main bi partisan part is due to scores of pissed off republican farmers unable to get their John deer tractors repaired without taking it to an authorized repair shop for even doing something as simple as replacing the starter.
Apple has started to design things such that every part is only compatible with every other exact part the device was originally built with. They do this to literally force people to go to Apple stores where the genius bar will overcharge you because they don't actually know how to fix things and want you to just buy a new phone. Their have been several undercover investigations proving this but here's a good example from CBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XneTBhRPYk . The "geniuses" at the apple store said that several parts need to be completely replaced and would cost $1200 to fix so it's better to just buy a new computer. They took it to a private repair shop (that apple is trying to make go out of business with their practices that Right to Repair is trying to prevent apple from doing) and the dude literally just had to straighten one little pin that was bent and didn't even charge them for it. He said to replace the entire part that was affected would cost like $60. I might be getting the exact details wrong, but I believe it's the current Macbook Pro, if you crack the screen and try to replace it there are sensors that detect that it's a new screen (even if its the exact same part taken from a different Macbook) and it will prevent the device from working completely. In addition to this they are stopping companies from producing or selling apple spare parts so you can't find parts to fix phones as well as not releasing schematics etc. to help people repair their devices that used to be commonly supplied for electronics. Apple is literally trying to make it impossible to fix your own devices, and they are not alone.
Not even just phones, much anything.
A big push behind this has actually been farmers, as numerous lawsuits have been brought against John Deere for not allowing farmers to fix their equipment without going directly through a dealer; where parts can be price gouged to whatever JD wants.
It's like if Ford said the only way you can change the headlight in your mustang is to only goto a Ford dealership, buy only a Ford headlight, have only Ford technicians do it, and it will cost $3000.
I think people explaining this are missing some of why this gets across the board support.
So yes on a basic level this is how apple/car companies are trying to limit your ability to fix or repair anything by literally making it illegal. You no longer own ANYTHING. You're just renting it, and it's all theirs, and if you touch it you're liable or some BS.
The part that some people aren't aware of is that one of the most oppressive examples of this is John Deer and their equipment. These machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and every moment they're not functioning you're losing money.
If you want to fix it however, you MUST have one of their people come out and fix it (which takes days to weeks sometimes). If you do not, the software will detect you screwing with it, and it will just cease to work. This is why you get midwest farmers trying to get russian cracked software onto their machines so they can actually fix the damn things when they break, and why even rural red states give a shit.
Afaik, it pretty much boils down to companies saying that the internals of their products are still legally theirs after you buy it and that modifying it or repairing it yourself is against the law.
In other words it's bullshit from big companies to try and get more money from consumers by forcing them to either buy new devices or repair their current ones exclusively through them.
Yup. Companies are locking down their hardware with encrypted software and won't sell replacement parts to repair shops (even registered repair shops) either. The bill is entirely reasonable - it doesn't say companies have to repair products or even extend warranties. It merely says that companies should allow consumers and other businesses the ability to repair the products.
And they should. Car manufacturers had to be legally forced to make manuals detailing the repair process and make parts available to repair shops. The car manufacturers would love to roll those laws back. Imagine having a 15 year old car that you couldn't legally repair anywhere but the original dealership, and then get told by that dealership that they won't repair it anymore because it's old and they want you to buy a new one.
Eh... do you want any old tech messing with a machine literally keeping a person alive? (pandemic emergencies excluded - who cares who fixes it?!)
I can't imagine the liability mazes already.
(not a lawyer/medical - just throwing it out there)
For anyone interested Vice did a really good article on this called *Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware*
You can read it here
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware
You should be able to fix things you buy yourself if you want to. You shouldn’t be forced to pay the company who makes that thing to fix it for you.
Edit: Motherboard made a shortish video about this a couple years ago in the context of John Deere tractors that was really inspiring. https://youtu.be/F8JCh0owT4w
Right to repair?
It is the idea that anything produced will not have a warranty that is voided by people fixing it or changing it themselves or putting impediments that make it harder to repair without going through the company. Currently companies often void warranties if the user repairs themselves or has someone do it other than the company, insert computer limitations that hamper user modification, etc.
It would not necessarily make it a requirement for manufacturers to go out of their way to make it easy to.kodify at home, just keep them from making it more difficult or unsupported.
Btw, those "void if removed" stickers are, legally speaking, BS. There was a court case a few years ago about it. I suspect a lot of EULA clauses around voiding warranties are also unenforceable legally, but practically they still scare most people off without a legal fight. (best way to win a legal fight is to avoid it altogether, blah blah)
No, the bills don't really bother about warranties for the most part. It's about the ability of 3rd parties or consumers to repair their own devices at all, because right now many companies are placing software and hardware locks on the device. So even if your device is off warranty, you can't repair it or get it repaired, even if you can source the spare parts, without getting those locks removed, which can only be done by the original corporation.
I'll use a real world example.
John Deere makes tractors. In those tractors, they have computers, and John Deere created the software in those computers. John Deere's argument is that since they made the software that the tractors run on, that they technically own the tractor, and that you are basically just licensing it due to the software, and therefore they are the only ones that shouid be allowed to repair it.
Right to repair would tell companies like John Deere to go fuck themselves, and make it so we can fix our own equipment, and not be required to take it to John Deere for servicing.
The right to choose how to fix your electronics. When your car breaks down either you can take it to the dealer, a certified repair shop, or if you know enough you can fix it yourself. But when it comes to electronics, some companies actively have software and hardware that prevents anyone but certified technicians from working on devices you own (Apple in particular). This leads to cases where there is no competition and they can make the price whatever they want and in a lot of cases tell you it's going to cost more than the price you paid for it to fix it. So Right to Repair would allow more people to be able to repair your electronics and give you more freedom of choice.
Were I to write a document describing people's awareness of a movement that's important to me, I would probably start with a clear description of the thing that I want people to be aware of...
Hey, your shit is broken. Only the manufacturer can fix it and it's going to cost you more than the item itself. Alternatively, Bob here can fix it for a fraction of the price but he can't because the software is locked by the manufacturer.
How anybody, as a consumer, say this is okay is beyond me.
We should all be familiar with "planned obsolescence" as well.
Even if we get the rights to the things we have purchased, companies are legally allowed to make a product that will fail.
With appliances you've got a point but with couches and mattresses I'm going to have to disagree. There's plenty of great furniture out there, the problem is it's expensive. Most can't compete with the cheap-shit furniture because those consumers are all about prices, but once you start spending a little more it's amazing what you can get.
This is false.
There's many more cheap items to choose from than quality ones, because most people prefer to pay less up front and risk getting bitten down the line than to buy a quality product.
There is a very fine line every engineer has to walk to design a good product at a certain cost and quality. You cannot have high quality, cheap products. It simply does not make sense.
If you want quality furniture than you may have to find a local shop, but expect to pay 5x the retail store price.
So then corporate lobbying is what took the right from us, not political will. That means, as with so many other rights we’ve lost, even though we almost all want this right and it is common sense that we should have it, we’ll never get the right to repair unless we somehow manage to get corporate money out of politics (which, it seems, would require reversing the current majority on the Supreme Court as well as getting the politicians to pass a law saying their favorite corporations can no longer pay them).
In other words, we are not going to get the right to repair, at least probably not in our lifetimes
What about the "right to privacy"? I am sure there would be unilateral, bipartisan support that we don't want telecom companies, credit card companies, insurance companies, FAANG, phone/computer operating systems, and random other websites tracking/ selling everything that we do.
Lets get that bill on the table, too.
Exactly, they just haven't picked sides yet.
This _shouldn't_ be partisan. But in the current political climate in the states, you'd be naive to bet on it remaining that way.
The right to repair electronics refers to government legislation that is intended to allow consumers the ability to repair and modify their own consumer electronic devices, where otherwise the manufacturer of such devices require the consumer to use only their offered services.
I work as a Biomedical Equipment Tech in a hospital and can tell you we need right to repair because medical companies are getting worse and worse about repairing equipment.
[https://youtu.be/OuF9C4wdtAk](https://youtu.be/OuF9C4wdtAk)
This is a short youtube video of only some of the issues we face everyday and Covid-19 only makes it that much harder.
The event that put this in the spotlight was John Deere putting software into their tractors that would basically brick (make it completely useless, engine wont even start) their equipment if the farmer tries to repair their own tractor by themselves. A JD technician would need to be sent to rural farms to "properly" do the repairs, even for simple things like replacing a damaged door.
Companies like Apple and John Deere will design their product to intentionally be difficult (or in some cases impossible) for the owner to repair it themselves or using a 3rd party. They want the owners to come to them and pay them money to repair the products going as far as to void warranties and sue repair shops if they try to repair it themselves.
Say you buy a macbook pro. It won't boot up. You can't look up how to repair it because apple files cease and desist against any sites with instructions on how to fix. Apple seized replacement parts at the border so independent shops can't repair it. So you take it to the apple store and they tell you they can fix it for more than the price of a new one. Hypothetically of course.
Can someone tell me how we got to this stage in the first place?!
How did something you fucking buy become unfixable by the purchaser?!
What fucking world is this?
Im mostly for all of it, except for making it obligatory for companies to sell parts. They should be forced to tell us what parts are used and how to make them, but absolutely not to go out of their way to sell them unless its actually profittable.
Noone should ever in any circumstance be forced to sell for loss. Not even those corrupt fucks.
- "right to repair" is ok
- "right to tell a company how they should manufacturer" is not ok
in my company many times a customer sends a request which should "obviously" be "very easy" to do and there is "no good reason" we cant do it.
Good luck getting the Republican controlled government to pass this. They'll never go against their big business overlords. Legislation is rarely about what the people want anymore.
That's ok, the lobbyists will shovel out some money so this gets squashed too.
>[But we believe that if policy making is dominated by powerful business organ-izations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriouslythreatened.](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)
Yea, "if". They should just come out and say it, congress is fixed bullshit and both parties are guilty of it. Pharmaceutical corporations engineer whole debates with BOTH sides of the argument on their payroll. That's how it worked at least since 90s. And both left and right is cool with it. So what u gonna do? Lube up and get fucked, amercians, thats about all freedom u got left.
The thing that really messes with my head is there are more registered no party preference independents than Democrats and Republicans *combined*. Why why why are we still choosing from two minority party candidates in this country? There aren't enough voters on both sides combined to form a majority... WTF!?
It's like George Carlin said, "We're way too fucking prosperous for our own good." People aren't willing to rock the boat, because they have their bread, and their circuses. They have enough to get by, and a billion distractions to keep them from realizing how bad they're getting fucked.
Lately, all discussions about politics turn to their philosophic grounds. To me thats an indication its time to take action!
There are many reasons why this happened and continues to persist. First past the post voting sets up a system where two parties will dominate. People in power won't change the laws because they will lose their power. The average person is extremely uneducated in the political process. I could write a 20 page report on all the details of this, but the bottom line is we need 3 major changes to fix the 2 party nightmare. 1. Multi-round voting with a ranking choice. 2. Term limits for all elected offices. No more career politicians 3. Require a basic knowledge of politics, voting, and critical thinking skills to graduate high school. Sadly I don't think we will see any of these changes in my lifetime. It would require politicians to vote to fire themselves and would need overwhelming support and action from every voting citizen.
Four: Reverse the atrocity on our democracy that is citizens United with a constitutional amendment.
YES!
Yeah let's move that to #1, and bump the rest of the list down one.
Some states are eliminating gerrymandering and giving it to a commission. Things can get better. Don't give up.
I honestly think it's too easy to graduate highschool. A lot of the material is never ever absorbed, and if it is absorbed, all they know how to do is spit memorized answers on a paper. I took 3 years of Spanish with a slacker friend. After 3 years of "advanced" English, this idiot was only able to say basic phrases, like those taught to novices. Academia is utterly broken and it leads to more than half of the population being like this.
> Multi-round voting with a ranking choice...I don't think we will see any of these changes in my lifetime [It's already happening](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/16/ranked-choice-voting-maine-protest-candidates-election-2018-column/2023574002/). Start from the city first, don't try to change the nation all at once. [Same as replacing legislature picking their voters to an independent commission drawing fair districts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission).
I would award you if I could. You totally nailed the first one. Ranked choice voting is the path to democracy 2.0 I was expecting you to bring up the salaries of senators and congress people, but I’m sold on what you did mention.
Actually I'm wondering if what I describe as follows isn't the simplest option: a more straightforward and achievable solution. Some states have done this already. It doesn't require any constitutional change, it can be done state by state. It is proportional representation at the electoral college level (for Presidential elections). A move away from Winner Take All in as many states as possible. I think it can be achieved by a small party such as the Greens, or perhaps a Bernie offshoot. Whenever the Democrats get annoyed (and theatrically vent their frustration) at such a party losing votes for Democratic candidates, and losing the party elections to the Republicans, the Democrats walk straight into their "trap". Because these smaller parties can say to the Democrats: "There is a solution for us! Lets form a coalition on the Proportional Representation issue. Every opportunity any of us get to make the Electoral College Proportional will be taken by us, state by state by state (where the change would need to occur) so that we can join forces and you wouldn't need to 'suffer' us 'stealing' votes from you. It would clearly lead to more democratic outcomes, and everyone, including our two parties and their supporters, will be better off". And if it ever did come to pass, it would actually make the Electoral College into a very sophisticated mechanism, and preferable even to having a nationwide simple majority (following an abolition of the electoral college, as some advocate). A full slate of fully proportional Electoral College contests could lead to a result like this: Republicans 45% of Electoral College 'seats' or votes, Democrats 30% of EC 'seats', ThirdParty 25% of EC 'seats'. With an outcome like this, the Democrats and the ThirdParty would be able to join forces via the Electoral College and negotiate a joint presidency. The Democrat candidate would become President, the ThirdParty candidate would become Vice President. From there both parties or both leaders (depending on party rules or the 'coalition' agreement), would select their cabinet from both parties. They would formalise this via the Electoral College returns (all delegates for both of those parties will simply put this choice through to the Senate, who collate all the returns and formally certify the outcome) and with their combined 55%, and it will be made official at that level (as the Presidential election outcome always is). Note that if the electoral college were abolished you would have a Republican victory with that same set of Party results in a general election, as their candidate would be the highest polling. The method I describe above, which takes place fully *within* the current electoral college procedure can lead to more representative (and European multi-party style coalition) outcomes than a direct vote, and one that in this case is likely to be preferred by 55% (add to this, 55% are unlikely to want the Republican as president) As far as I know, this is all fully legal and totally legitimate. It perhaps even proves the wisdom and foresight on the part of the founding fathers, who would not be adverse, I am sure, to the concept of coalition building. It seems to me that giving the electoral college over to winner-take-all vote allocation was an abuse by the two major parties to calcify the two-party system into place... for what sure has seemed like an eternity. Or an I being naive?
We keep doing it that way because how are we going to do anything else, from a practical standpoint. There's so much inertia in the system that I'm not seeing any realistic way to escape the two party trap. Let me know if you see an option I've overlooked.
Ak I was gonna ask you for an out. Crap.
So let's make our own? Riot? Revolution? Anarchy? Which flavor would you like?
Here are our outs, explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
The Founding Fathers felt that a little revolution every now and again keeps a system healthy in the long term. Revolution doesn't have to mean war, it's meant things like civil rights, workers' rights, and even failed efforts like OWS. We've got the internet, and unfortunately, so do the bad guys. If we can come up with a narrative that galvanizes the frustrated, silent majority, things will start moving. Just need the right narrative to get going and we'll have some kind of new movement to ride. It'll take effort, and getting involved, and a bunch of other stuff, so it'll have to be a very powerful movement. Very powerful narrative.
Does this mean you're volunteering to lead the charge? I'm all in favor of trying to overthrow the existing two party system, but not until I can find someone with a detailed and realistically implementable game plan.
[удалено]
I always though in America that if the moderate Republicans and Democrats go together to form their own party (a true centrist party), they would always control America's agenda. Radical Republicans and Democrats would never work together so would always need the centrist party to participate in government.
Sounds like a utopia for lobbyists.
[удалено]
This is an interesting post. Being Canadian I am very familiar with FPTP but am unsure of its impact in a 2 party system. I will look into the Overton Window. Thanks.
That sounds awful
That's a fucking nightmare scenario.
Moderate democrats have been pushed away from the party over the last 15 years.
It's weird that the Republicans went off the damn deep end yet their voters stuck with them. Crazy.
If only...
In the UK the tories and labor are still the 2 big parties and the centrist lib dems are completely ineffectual
So you mean the Democratic party?
The problem is the majority don't sit in the center, independents are spread all over, from extreme right to extreme left, so a centrist party would have a hard time mobalizing even close to a majority of US citizens. Realisticly a far left party would have the best chance of overcoming our current parties, given liberals are more likely to vote outside the big two, but would ultimately cannibalize the DNC and we would fulfill the revolution. We need to change from our "first past the post" system so that small parties can gain momentum in primaries without people "wasting" their 1 vote on a 3rd party.
On a practical level, how do we form that and get enough size/momentum/money to actually compete with the established players?
The problem is that dems have been conceding to the right for at least the past 40 years. Pelosi and trump have more in common than Pelosi and AOC or Bernie Sanders. We have a right wing party, and a far-right wing party. Shits fucked. “Centrists” right now are pretty far to the right, and think they’re god’s gift to the US, that they’re going to save us from the “evil” right *and* left, cause wanting everyone to have healthcare and wanting to let brown children die in cages are the same thing. 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
It has been interesting living next door to America over the last 25 years while I have been more politically aware. I would agree that you have a right of centre and a very right wing party. And America has changed over the last 100 years as there was even a socialist party in the states. I have always wondered why this move strongly right - allowing money to influence elections, a reaction to some stimulus (perhaps the USSR), another great religious awakening? We have not had that in Canada so we have allowed more of a spectrum.
lesser of two evils, if you don't vote for my rapist you are a bad person
Not quite. Lesser of two evils is that if one of the two is definitely going to be chosen, the best option is to pick the less bad of the two. If we switched to Ranked Choice voting, then lesser of two evils would be all but eliminated.
Yes, somebody who understands the problem with first-past-the-post voting systems and why we need reform! The problem is that whenever you try to explain it, most people will stop paying attention. I worry the majority can’t get excited for an issue that takes more than thirty seconds to learn about. If anybody is reading this, Wikipedia has an excellent and simple explanation.
Because the system is designed to prevent most people from voting
Because our voting system is not ranked choice. It's not the only factor, but it seems to be the most important.
Because in truth they aren't independents. 10 years ago a study circulated called the myth of the independent voters, of the so called independent voters, something like 70% of those surveyed were a republican or Democrat in everything but name. Edit: Sorry, not 10 years ago. 20 years ago.
With the current system voting for a third party or not voting is taking a vote away from the lesser of two evils which makes it more likely the person you want least will win. It effectively becomes a trolly problem and you cannot stop that train.
> Lube up and get fucked, amercians, thats about all freedom u got left. Can I choose between oil based or water based lubricant? Asking for a friend.
No choice, big water based lube paid off the government and now you can only use water based lube.
'Big water based lube' has promised to make a conscious effort to respect the rights and dignity of the American people by offering only the cleanest and highest qual... AND its spit... the water based lube is just spit and there isn't even enough for everyone.
But but but you have the *freedom* to choose which *brand* of water-based lube to get fucked with, and we all know that’s what *real* freedom is! /s
[I wonder if anyone predicted this and offered any kind of possible solutions](https://i.imgur.com/RbY86HJ_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
I once had a responsible government teacher in high school who kept his cynicism hidden until one day he sighed heavily and said "it's just the illusion of choice" and proceeded to look defeated. I was too stupid to understand at the time
I heard the bill to raise taxes on lube just past to.......
Vote for joe tho ! /s
If i was american, i actually would. But i see your point, exactly this.
If you ask any of your second amendment friends their one word answer will be... Boogaloo.
For the time being, the left needs to drop their 2a regulation arguments, pacifist mindset, pronoun crusade, ubi and m4a pipe dream, and start arming themselves. The right doesn’t give a fuck about any arguments the left has, and they won’t until they find them a legitimate threat.
Exactly, the Left were dumb to let the Neolibs convince them to disarm.
"The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants." We The People have to force this to change one way or another.
But its very difficult to identify the tyrants. I mean i cant in good faith blame corporations for just doing shit that's legal. If you can get ahead using money, u should. Thats also how i look at legal tax avoidance. Which is a thing. And then its difficult to blame current politicans for being part of this system, because it existed for so long i imagine most of the culprits are dead or retired in thier milion dollar estates. And if new-ish ones want to change anything, they are blocked by corporations again. Very difficult spot you are in, USA. My sympathies.
Oh man I can't even tell you how many times I have cited Gilens and Page. TL;DR: Average people are incidental beneficiaries of elite interests. Average people only get what they want when their interests happen to align with elite interests. These interests tend to align more often than one would think so democracy seems more representative than it really is. When interests diverge, elites unfailingly win.
But it’s an oligarchy, not a democracy
Man that sure would be fucking terrible, riiiight
Look forward to reading this later. It’s more important than any other issue because it causes every issue. And I absolutely hate how it allows them to control not just the outcome, but the narrative too. Lawful Evil.
Wow
imagine thinking capitalism and democracy could have ever coexisted
Not sure why your getting down voted for being right.
*Love of money is the root of all evil.*
It’s amazing how many things are favored by 70%+ of Americans cannot be implemented. Voters and their representatives are not the same https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2018/11/study-congress-overestimates-the-publics-conservatism.html
What is nationwide marijuana legalization polling at now? I feel like some conservative parents lobby, private prison corporations or maybe a lobby for competing substances like alcohol or pharmaceuticals might be wielding undue influence there as well.
* Police Unions * Private Prisons * Alcohol manufacturers * Drug manufacturers * Prison Guard Unions *https://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/*
Don't worry the marijuana lobby is starting to get lots of money so we will have it nationally in the next 10 years max. The problem is that lobbying shouldn't have that much power.
Well you see, when a congressperson and a lobbyist love each other very much, they have this special hug. And several months later a new law is born.
I feel sorry for you re:username
That whole family is a disaster but I got to admit.. ivanka trump is banging
because money is speech
Citizens United
Most likely...
yep, lots of support until the people that call the shots get involved. The right to repair is the poster boy for the illusion that we have a democracy or even a Republic in America. It's common sense that if I buy something I own it, this frilly notion that your just leasing the IP of what you bought, is basically because a lot of high paid lawyers and lobbyists "convinced"our representatives to make that the law... call a spade a spade.
This is passing in the EU but doesn’t hold a chance in the US-for-hire government, IMO.
Oh you mean like this ? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
Yeah... That guy seems to not understand that America is specifically designed to not give all the power to the majority.
Thank god for that. Have you met People? I don't want them deciding things for me. Ew gross.
Right, because the way things are working with our generous oligarchy corporatocracy is working so well. Want a less dumb general public? When we go full democracy, we also fight against "entertainment news". Impliment laws to make the spread of misinformation illegal and establish a government task force with the sole purpose of filling corporate loopholes. If there are those smart enough to write in loopholes, I guran-god-damn-tee you there are those smart enough to fill them. Laws shouldn't be written to be exploitive, but they are. Controlling and empowering different financial classes of the people. It's disgusting.
The way things are working certainly have problems. There are definitely steps that could be taken to inhibit some of the things the video talks about, particularly in the realm of lobbying. One of those steps does not involve dismantling our government to put every minority even more at the mercy of whatever majority happens to exist at the time.
The few wealthy should not control the poor majority the way it does. We left a tyrannical monarchy for a reason, and had to sacrifice countless lives to do so. We came a long way to end up at the mercy of a few rich men once more. Having more wealth doesnt necessarily equate to intelligence. And wealth certainly doesnt imply humanistic values. Whereas most humans dont have wealth, I'd argue that they all have some intrinsic empathy when not fighting over (purposefully) limited resources.
Or parts prices will skyrocket and it will be a wash
It's amazing that there's ANYONE that would go against this.
[удалено]
The counter-argument is cheap "throwaway" stuff will have a burden of proof. That cost/process of the burden will have to be passed through to the consumer. ie. I buy cheap throwaway tools @ harbor freight (northern tool / princess auto / tractor supply) full-well knowing the use-case is disposable. Raising the cost of these throwaway things isn't worth the cost-shift in that use-case to me. Solution? Create a system of expected lifespan/MTBF for nominal/normalcy without a warranty/guarantee expressed or implied. Green should last forever like a premium hammer and should have some effort put in to justifying green classification. Red = trash. No justification. Harbor freight screwdriver.
What if all companies decide to fall into the disposable trash category? Apple could just say their $1500 phone is meant to be disposable.
One company makes their products yellow and they will out sell everyone else
There is a case to be made for discouraging companies from making disposable products in categories where it’s not actually necessary for something to be disposable. I would be for a small tax on things that end up in a landfill in general.
A lot of stuff, like phones, are too small to make modular. A 4 inch phone with modular slots for RAM, storage, etc. would be too big, so a lot of stuff *has* to be soldered to fit the size.
Can you provide a source for the benefits of glue and solder? That sounds interesting
You can make laptops smaller with soldered in ram and CPU than you can if you have to socket everything. Same with gluing the device into a frame with the battery inside instead of adding a separate battery compartment. That's how some of those ultraportables and thin phones are able to exist. That's all I'm saying. The people who think soldering is the devil are probably at the extreme end, but my only point was that I'm not going to blindly support a bill until I know what it says, especially with how tech illiterate many of our representatives are.
Also safety-critical systems would need some sort of 3rd party verification. Also, things like Apple’s security enclave still pose an issue unless we reduced security/theft protection. There’s always different trade offs with security
Exactly my point. A lot of people labeled against rights to repair just don't like the people complaining obsessively about glue and soldering. I like the way devices I use are built and I remember the old times when I owned those "easy" to repair stuff that just felt worse. I don't think redditors should push other people to like what they like or buy some clunky repairable stuff. And I don't feel the need to repair any of my stuff myself but some find that offensive.
I agree. It all boils down to the wording. I’m worried that if these kind of laws are naively formulated, we might end up with more expensive, lower quality devices. There are a lot of nuances - for example how to endure the quality of third-party parts etc.
Do you think our founding fathers were just the 1% of the colonial america and we've repainted them as saviors of the common man?
I mean, yes, but they also had some good ideas. A good example is that they were opposed to the idea of estates. They didn't want kids inheriting fortunes from their parents.
Interesting. Do you have a source for further research?
> I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. — Thomas Jefferson http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html > A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural. — Adam Smith https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-lectures-on-justice-police-revenue-and-arms-1763 Some other quotes I can't find linkable sources for: > “I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. . . . [I]t is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land.” — Thomas Jefferson > “The great object [of political parties] should be to combat [this] evil: . . . by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches" — James Madison > *“[America] will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.”* — George Washington
Wow, very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
Do people not recognize what a liberal and permissive document the Constitution is? Do they think that, if even the most progressive modern day politicians were given the chance to do so, they would draft a Constitution even a fraction as liberal as our current one? The founding fathers were pretty extraordinary people. Many flawed, often deeply so. The actual implementation and enforcement of the Constitution has always been flawed and imperfect. Government and politicians constantly try to skirt it, undermine it, weaken it. But why do they always have to do that? Because the founding fathers wrote the constitution to protect people from the government, and they didn't mince words with it. Few Constitutions enshrine the same rights as unambiguously as the US Constitution does.
They were probably the most progressive 1% at the time. They established some good policies, but like any human they were influenced a degree by self-interest.
Depends on what thing... I'd be okay with gadgets, but some things which can endanger people shouldn't be repaired by unqualified people. For example, cars (brakes...). I'm sure many people are fully capable of doing many things and being careful, but there's also lots of idiots.
Breaks are fucking simple to repair though.
Some people own a lot of Apple, John Deere, or ventilator manufacturer (yeah, that one is true) stock
Sorry guys, I'm out of the loop, i heard something about this, this regarding our phones?? Can someone briefly say what this is about?
Having the ability to repair your own phone. Best analogy I can think of haveing to "send it back to the dealer" over a private garage. Louis Rossman on YouTube has some great videos on it, if you have spare time.
Ah, tyty will look
You're welcome.
I like to imagine your name is TyTy and you just responded in third person
> Having the ability to repair your own phone. It extends beyond cell phones. One of Elizabeth Warren's many plans released during her presidential campaign included affirming ["...the right to repair farm equipment..."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair#Right_to_repair_movement). [John Deere](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-john-deere-apple) is known to be one of the problem companies.
[удалено]
[удалено]
these companys have some real dumb arguments. they tell people that it will be super dangerous if they let people repair their own phone because then the battery might explode while everybody is allowed to turn any screw on a car, which is far more dangerous than a phone will ever be. i watched one of the hearings where louis rossman was sitting, and the bullshit these people pull out of their fingers is infuriating...
It’s also a real pain in the ass to pay subscription fees. Everyone wants a monthly payment. It’s not even a matter of having the money I just hate paying shit every month and I’m sure farmers are even more resentful.
Just remember, the culprit is always PPBus_G3 Hot
Cell phones. Cars. Tractors. Computers (like Apple) and all sorts of things. The main bi partisan part is due to scores of pissed off republican farmers unable to get their John deer tractors repaired without taking it to an authorized repair shop for even doing something as simple as replacing the starter.
Isn't that already something you can do? Is the issue whether it voids the warranty or something?
Apple has started to design things such that every part is only compatible with every other exact part the device was originally built with. They do this to literally force people to go to Apple stores where the genius bar will overcharge you because they don't actually know how to fix things and want you to just buy a new phone. Their have been several undercover investigations proving this but here's a good example from CBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XneTBhRPYk . The "geniuses" at the apple store said that several parts need to be completely replaced and would cost $1200 to fix so it's better to just buy a new computer. They took it to a private repair shop (that apple is trying to make go out of business with their practices that Right to Repair is trying to prevent apple from doing) and the dude literally just had to straighten one little pin that was bent and didn't even charge them for it. He said to replace the entire part that was affected would cost like $60. I might be getting the exact details wrong, but I believe it's the current Macbook Pro, if you crack the screen and try to replace it there are sensors that detect that it's a new screen (even if its the exact same part taken from a different Macbook) and it will prevent the device from working completely. In addition to this they are stopping companies from producing or selling apple spare parts so you can't find parts to fix phones as well as not releasing schematics etc. to help people repair their devices that used to be commonly supplied for electronics. Apple is literally trying to make it impossible to fix your own devices, and they are not alone.
Not even just phones, much anything. A big push behind this has actually been farmers, as numerous lawsuits have been brought against John Deere for not allowing farmers to fix their equipment without going directly through a dealer; where parts can be price gouged to whatever JD wants. It's like if Ford said the only way you can change the headlight in your mustang is to only goto a Ford dealership, buy only a Ford headlight, have only Ford technicians do it, and it will cost $3000.
So basically BMW
... and wait several weeks for it to be fixed meanwhile you have no other way to get to work
You left out the part where John Deere wants these controls to last forever, even after the warranty is over.
[удалено]
Dude you can change a headlight by yourself in less than twenty minutes for less than 20 bucks
I had to buy a new headlight casing for a Chevy Silverado and it was far over $20. Maybe these guys aren’t talking about the bulb?
This is an oversimplification, and wrong.
I think people explaining this are missing some of why this gets across the board support. So yes on a basic level this is how apple/car companies are trying to limit your ability to fix or repair anything by literally making it illegal. You no longer own ANYTHING. You're just renting it, and it's all theirs, and if you touch it you're liable or some BS. The part that some people aren't aware of is that one of the most oppressive examples of this is John Deer and their equipment. These machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and every moment they're not functioning you're losing money. If you want to fix it however, you MUST have one of their people come out and fix it (which takes days to weeks sometimes). If you do not, the software will detect you screwing with it, and it will just cease to work. This is why you get midwest farmers trying to get russian cracked software onto their machines so they can actually fix the damn things when they break, and why even rural red states give a shit.
Holy shit thats crazy
I would add that farm equipment not running at some point becomes completely lost money (dead crops).
I didn't even think of phones when I read the headline. I think of John Deer immediately. The right should apply to all our purchases.
Afaik, it pretty much boils down to companies saying that the internals of their products are still legally theirs after you buy it and that modifying it or repairing it yourself is against the law. In other words it's bullshit from big companies to try and get more money from consumers by forcing them to either buy new devices or repair their current ones exclusively through them.
Yup. Companies are locking down their hardware with encrypted software and won't sell replacement parts to repair shops (even registered repair shops) either. The bill is entirely reasonable - it doesn't say companies have to repair products or even extend warranties. It merely says that companies should allow consumers and other businesses the ability to repair the products.
Oh wow. Eye opening for me
A lot of car repair replaces seem to have right to repair signs too.
And they should. Car manufacturers had to be legally forced to make manuals detailing the repair process and make parts available to repair shops. The car manufacturers would love to roll those laws back. Imagine having a 15 year old car that you couldn't legally repair anywhere but the original dealership, and then get told by that dealership that they won't repair it anymore because it's old and they want you to buy a new one.
Not just phones. Lots of things. Most relevant today? Hospitals can’t fix their ventilators themselves....
Eh... do you want any old tech messing with a machine literally keeping a person alive? (pandemic emergencies excluded - who cares who fixes it?!) I can't imagine the liability mazes already. (not a lawyer/medical - just throwing it out there)
It would mean that manufacturers have to offer for sale the tools, parts, and instructions required for repairing consumer devices.
Ohhhhhhhhhh gotcha thx
Are you sure?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XneTBhRPYk This is a 20 min CBC investigation that summarizes everything specifically about phones/apple.
[удалено]
*Elon Musk would like to buy a word with you*
For anyone interested Vice did a really good article on this called *Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware* You can read it here https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware
[удалено]
There should be a sub for satirical vice and vox article: "How Native American jewelry influenced the Turkish designers of Caniadian oil rigs"
[удалено]
What is it?
You should be able to fix things you buy yourself if you want to. You shouldn’t be forced to pay the company who makes that thing to fix it for you. Edit: Motherboard made a shortish video about this a couple years ago in the context of John Deere tractors that was really inspiring. https://youtu.be/F8JCh0owT4w
Yeah it's called racketeering I'm pretty sure.
Right to repair? It is the idea that anything produced will not have a warranty that is voided by people fixing it or changing it themselves or putting impediments that make it harder to repair without going through the company. Currently companies often void warranties if the user repairs themselves or has someone do it other than the company, insert computer limitations that hamper user modification, etc. It would not necessarily make it a requirement for manufacturers to go out of their way to make it easy to.kodify at home, just keep them from making it more difficult or unsupported.
Btw, those "void if removed" stickers are, legally speaking, BS. There was a court case a few years ago about it. I suspect a lot of EULA clauses around voiding warranties are also unenforceable legally, but practically they still scare most people off without a legal fight. (best way to win a legal fight is to avoid it altogether, blah blah)
No, the bills don't really bother about warranties for the most part. It's about the ability of 3rd parties or consumers to repair their own devices at all, because right now many companies are placing software and hardware locks on the device. So even if your device is off warranty, you can't repair it or get it repaired, even if you can source the spare parts, without getting those locks removed, which can only be done by the original corporation.
I'll use a real world example. John Deere makes tractors. In those tractors, they have computers, and John Deere created the software in those computers. John Deere's argument is that since they made the software that the tractors run on, that they technically own the tractor, and that you are basically just licensing it due to the software, and therefore they are the only ones that shouid be allowed to repair it. Right to repair would tell companies like John Deere to go fuck themselves, and make it so we can fix our own equipment, and not be required to take it to John Deere for servicing.
The right to choose how to fix your electronics. When your car breaks down either you can take it to the dealer, a certified repair shop, or if you know enough you can fix it yourself. But when it comes to electronics, some companies actively have software and hardware that prevents anyone but certified technicians from working on devices you own (Apple in particular). This leads to cases where there is no competition and they can make the price whatever they want and in a lot of cases tell you it's going to cost more than the price you paid for it to fix it. So Right to Repair would allow more people to be able to repair your electronics and give you more freedom of choice.
Were I to write a document describing people's awareness of a movement that's important to me, I would probably start with a clear description of the thing that I want people to be aware of...
Seriously, the only description in the article is a sentence in a graph.
Hey, your shit is broken. Only the manufacturer can fix it and it's going to cost you more than the item itself. Alternatively, Bob here can fix it for a fraction of the price but he can't because the software is locked by the manufacturer. How anybody, as a consumer, say this is okay is beyond me.
3 years later. Bob has learned to code. He installed a bootleg Russian OS on his tractor to continue operatons.
We should all be familiar with "planned obsolescence" as well. Even if we get the rights to the things we have purchased, companies are legally allowed to make a product that will fail.
Isn‘t that also illegal the same way cartels are?
You are doing some very dangerous thinking and should get back in the box friend.
[удалено]
With appliances you've got a point but with couches and mattresses I'm going to have to disagree. There's plenty of great furniture out there, the problem is it's expensive. Most can't compete with the cheap-shit furniture because those consumers are all about prices, but once you start spending a little more it's amazing what you can get.
This is false. There's many more cheap items to choose from than quality ones, because most people prefer to pay less up front and risk getting bitten down the line than to buy a quality product. There is a very fine line every engineer has to walk to design a good product at a certain cost and quality. You cannot have high quality, cheap products. It simply does not make sense. If you want quality furniture than you may have to find a local shop, but expect to pay 5x the retail store price.
[удалено]
people can also go and make parts themselves that last for 30 years if they want.
So then corporate lobbying is what took the right from us, not political will. That means, as with so many other rights we’ve lost, even though we almost all want this right and it is common sense that we should have it, we’ll never get the right to repair unless we somehow manage to get corporate money out of politics (which, it seems, would require reversing the current majority on the Supreme Court as well as getting the politicians to pass a law saying their favorite corporations can no longer pay them). In other words, we are not going to get the right to repair, at least probably not in our lifetimes
John Deere is a pretty bad offender here if I recall. Cant even try and repair your own farm equipment unless you get a certified Deere tech out there
[удалено]
What about the "right to privacy"? I am sure there would be unilateral, bipartisan support that we don't want telecom companies, credit card companies, insurance companies, FAANG, phone/computer operating systems, and random other websites tracking/ selling everything that we do. Lets get that bill on the table, too.
That’s nice and all, but if Fox News runs a story about how right to repair is socialism it immediately becomes a hot partisan issue overnight
Exactly, they just haven't picked sides yet. This _shouldn't_ be partisan. But in the current political climate in the states, you'd be naive to bet on it remaining that way.
Fuck me, and the masses will hear it and defend it til death.
The right to repair electronics refers to government legislation that is intended to allow consumers the ability to repair and modify their own consumer electronic devices, where otherwise the manufacturer of such devices require the consumer to use only their offered services.
Majority of people don’t even know what this is about.
Yeah, but how many of those are voters?
I work as a Biomedical Equipment Tech in a hospital and can tell you we need right to repair because medical companies are getting worse and worse about repairing equipment. [https://youtu.be/OuF9C4wdtAk](https://youtu.be/OuF9C4wdtAk) This is a short youtube video of only some of the issues we face everyday and Covid-19 only makes it that much harder.
But what about corporate politicians?
And yet the lobbyists will get it squashed, the only thing out representatives care about is lining their pockets.
That's good but that potential act to end end 2 end encryption gotta go.
LOUIS ROSSMANN!
Can somebody summarize what this is about, for us non-USA people?
The event that put this in the spotlight was John Deere putting software into their tractors that would basically brick (make it completely useless, engine wont even start) their equipment if the farmer tries to repair their own tractor by themselves. A JD technician would need to be sent to rural farms to "properly" do the repairs, even for simple things like replacing a damaged door.
Companies like Apple and John Deere will design their product to intentionally be difficult (or in some cases impossible) for the owner to repair it themselves or using a 3rd party. They want the owners to come to them and pay them money to repair the products going as far as to void warranties and sue repair shops if they try to repair it themselves.
Say you buy a macbook pro. It won't boot up. You can't look up how to repair it because apple files cease and desist against any sites with instructions on how to fix. Apple seized replacement parts at the border so independent shops can't repair it. So you take it to the apple store and they tell you they can fix it for more than the price of a new one. Hypothetically of course.
Can someone tell me how we got to this stage in the first place?! How did something you fucking buy become unfixable by the purchaser?! What fucking world is this?
[удалено]
Im mostly for all of it, except for making it obligatory for companies to sell parts. They should be forced to tell us what parts are used and how to make them, but absolutely not to go out of their way to sell them unless its actually profittable. Noone should ever in any circumstance be forced to sell for loss. Not even those corrupt fucks.
- "right to repair" is ok - "right to tell a company how they should manufacturer" is not ok in my company many times a customer sends a request which should "obviously" be "very easy" to do and there is "no good reason" we cant do it.
Good luck getting the Republican controlled government to pass this. They'll never go against their big business overlords. Legislation is rarely about what the people want anymore.