They concluded that *general* public sentiment had almost *no* impact on US policy making - but the political preferences of wealthy people and large corporations were hugely predictive of what laws and regulations we'd get.
Or, in poli-sci jargon, "Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
The Right to Repair fight is a hell of a proof of this principle. It's really hard to overstate the popularity of the idea that you should be able to fix your own stuff, or choose where you get your stuff fixed.
Take auto-repair. As auto-manufacturing has grown more concentrated, car makers have squeezed independent mechanics - as close to a folk-hero as the American imagination can produce! - to the margins.
After all, forcing car owners to use official service depots has huge advantages: manufacturers can gouge on service prices, they can force drivers to buy expensive original parts, and they get to unilaterally decide when a car is beyond repair and force you to buy a new one.
Drivers have a good intuitive sense that this is going on. That's why, when Bay Staters voted on Massachusetts Question 1 (an automotive R2R ballot initiative) in 2012, it passed with an 86% majority!
The 2012 rule forced automakers to give mechanics access to diagnostic info from cars' wired internal networks, so Big Car moved all the useful diagnostic data to their cars' *wireless* networks. Hence the 2020 Massachusetts R2R ballot initiative, which closed this loophole.
The 2020 fight over the Mass. R2R ballot initiative was fuckin' *wild*.
The car-makers ran some seriously freaky scare-ads, in which the ability of auto mechanics to read wireless diagnostic data led directly to women being stalked and *murdered*.
I'm not making this up. The underlying premise was, "We turned your car into a hyper-aggressive mobile surveillance platform that incidentally gets you places. If we let other people see the data we're nonconsensually extracting from you, it will put you in terrible danger."
Thankfully, Bay Staters saw through this bullshit and passed 2020's Question 1 with a 75% majority.
The thing is, people completely understand that they should be in charge of deciding who fixes their stuff.
They understand that the risk of poor repairs should be addressed through consumer protection laws (which also bind monopolists' own authorized repair depots), not by having the repair market privately regulated by monopolists who have vast conflicts of interest.
This understanding has only deepened through the pandemic year, as authorized repair depots shuttered and vital equipment languished thanks to anti-repair laws and technological countermeasures.
For example, Medtronic's workhorse PB840 ventilators couldn't be refurbed without using a grey-market activation dongle that a single Polish med-tech homebrewed, encasing them in cases harvested from busted clock-radios and guitar pedals.
Medtronic - a med-tech monopolist that effected the largest corporate inversion in history to escape US taxes - argues that letting independent med-techs fix its products puts patients at risk, but this argument is every bit as flimsy as the auto-makers' Mass. scare-ads.
It ignores three important facts:
I. Med-techs have *always* done this kind of repair. The change isn't that med-techs are demanding the right to do something new - it's that Medtronic leveraged its monopoly to foreclose on the industry-standard practice
II. Medtronic's own security track-record is comically terrible. This is the company that makes pacemakers that can be wirelessly hacked from across a room to kill its user, whose software update system doesn't even use cryptographic signatures.
If Medtronic is an expert on any aspect of patient safety, that expertise is certainly hard-won, derived from its long history of lethal patient endangerment.
III. If there *is* a problem with indie technicians struggling to fix Medtronic products, the obvious answer is to provide service manuals, parts and diagnostic codes.
The case for Right to Repair is incredibly strong.
Not only does R2R protect consumers from ripoffs, it also provides local jobs - 1-4% of US GDP comes from the independent repair sector, almost entirely in independent small/medium businesses.
Repair is an important environmental, labor and human rights story. As leaked internal memos demonstrate, Apple's aggressively landfilling of devices (so customers buy more) is environmentally devastating and creates demand for conflict minerals.
The average American family loses $330/year because of the lack of access to independent repair, a $40b annual drag on the economy thanks to monopoly rents collected by monopoly firms.
To say nothing of the impact on jobs: landfilling a kiloton of ewaste creates <1 job; recycling that waste creates 15 jobs, while repairing it creates *200* good, local jobs that can't be offshored (you don't send a phone overseas for repair).
Deere leads Big Ag's anti-repair, forcing farmers to use official parts, preventing modifications that would allow third-party attachments, and collecting outrageous service call fees for a technician whose job is to unlock the tractor after the farmer replaces a part.
This policy means that farmers who fix their own tractors still can't use them even if there's a hail-storm coming and they need to bring in the crop.
Farmers - who've been fixing their own gear since the first farmer built a forge next to their farmhouse - are desperate.
Some farmers download anonymously maintained Ukrainian firmware and overwrite the Deere software, creating unknowable risk of remote attack. Others have to maintain "backup tractors" they use for weeks while waiting for Deere to fix their equipment.
Just like Medtronic and GM, Deere claims that allowing independent service creates infosec risk - but just like its anti-repair comrades, Deere's own infosec is a dumpster-fire, with tractors across America at risk of mass-scale cyber-attacks:
The common thread joining these firms is monopoly: a lack of competition that allows them to extract billions from the public, and a cozy cohort of business leaders who can mobilize that loot to ensure that politicians and regulators don't give the public what it demands.
American industry is experiencing a wave of monopolism not seen since the Gilded Age, and it affects every sector. Take hair-clippers - a category that exploded during the lockdown thanks to the new need for home cuts.
The clipper market is monopolized by a single firm, Wahl. As I discovered - the hard way - Wahl has designed its newest clippers so they disintegrate if you try to take them apart to sharpen them.
Instead of sharpening these devices, you're expected to buy a new $40 blade (for a shaver that costs $60 all in!), and throw out the old one - or, less realistically, you can mail them your razor for factory sharpening.
You won't be surprised to learn that Wahl is part of the war on repair, sending letters to state legislators warning that letting people sharpen their own clipper blades could lead to fatal housefires.
Two years ago, the FTC convened an inquiry on independent repair called "Nixing the Fix." The Nixing the Fix report was released earlier this month, and it affirms everything that repair advocates have said all along.
@pluralistic It's a strangling monopoly from control freaks who pretend to sell something, but refuse to relinquish what they sold.
@pluralistic This seems to be the Bill Gates business model from the start, as well, with the fake OS sitting on top of the real OS that was not accessible.
Mamot.fr est une serveur Mastodon francophone, géré par La Quadrature du Net.