meanduck

> IMO it's a very good law for the population/nation/citizens.

But this is how Govts make enemies in business communities. Actions like these what made China 2nd most wealthy nation in record time.

> Ignoring that it will help small businesses.

How ? Common sense tell me this will put more legal requirements; those are never fun.

> being able to do what you want with the things you bought should be a right, not a privilege

Absolutely. But this forces Apple/others. It does not release customers from restrictions. If there are such any restrictions, Govts would be with in their rights to make such user/customer agreements unenforcable. But again, thats what not happening here.

> Your car stops working because you haven't made your mandatory overpriced yearly checkup? Sounds neat

How about you look for more favourable company ? But you know thats what people do. Such anti-customer corporations you are describing does not last for long in the market unless ofcourse Govts are helping them in someway, as the history shows.

> Also having access to at least service manuals (if not complete schematics) can help repair and reuse electronics, which is great for the environment, low wage workers/families and developing nations in general

Irrelevent. You are curbing liberties. Thats the argument against the law.

From the article:

> Right to repair bills, which are currently making their way through eight states (Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, Wyoming, Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois, and Massachusetts), would require electronics manufacturers to make repair parts and diagnostic and repair manuals available to independent repair professionals and consumers, not just "authorized" repair companies.

This seems like forcing Apple rather than releasing consumers. Just another example of over interfering Govts.

Though this part does suggest some govt strong arming.

> be highly encouraged (tax benefits etc)

Also note that many (including me) believe that taxes are already non-consensual and extortion by Govts.

> Does it matter?

Yes there is a pretty big difference. Its not wealth redistribution. You are just spending the money created by natural resource. Its Govt/Peoples wealth to spend as they see fit.

> "Open source, but licensed under the AGPL.", says the article. There is no "but" here. The AGPL is the very definition of "open source", because it defends openness. If you have nothing to fear from open source, you have nothing to fear from the AGPL.

If you want the project to be openly collabrative but quasi-free, calling it Open Source would be hijacking the term. Call it Social Justice Licence or something.

Thats why most economically obvious thing for a neighbourhood is to own the infrastructure not rent it. If it were not for "i-do-everything" govts, neighbourhoods would have learnt this long ago. Even Govts owning would have been ok, but then we would not have crony capitalism.

And I cant believe I have to type this on HN of all places.

No one denies that monopolies are risky. In fact this is the argument against anti-trust regulations, which is basically a monopoly granted to very few people (which in practice, means a guranteed monopoly to a colluding subgroup of political class). There are probably more cases of harm done by this monopoly than by corporations monopolies.

Also one major difference, Corporations have to earn their monopolies where the political class dont. Only one of these two will not think twice before abusing it.

We already have a protection agaisnt monopolies aka free market.

What if

    jury_of_peers = random12(peers(defendant) + peers(prosecutor)) OR random6(peers(defendant)) + random6(peers(prosecutor));
    peers(X) is declared/set by X. num(peers(X)) >= num_citizens/10 so that corrupt X cant set 12 yes men.
    This would incentivize X to be good to peers(X).

The worst case is neither worst president nor worst damage possible by a presidential power. But its the worst 51% votes can do. Because there will come someone who will say anything to get these votes and people will vote themselves into dystopia.

It should only be seen as temporary solution though. The permanent solution would be to reclassify passowrds, fingerprints, blood samples etc as testimony.

Making prosecuting the <0.1% easier at the cost of making 99.9%+ vulnerable should always be avoided.

> Trump is a symptom of something that was already there probably decades in the making

And the something is: Democratic entitlement. Larger population is feeling the world owe them happy life, free healthcare and the all the things that successful have "took" from them.

And ofcourse its not sustainable. Democracy is done. I give it at most two more Trumps.

PS: I preassume its ok to talk politics in political threads.