706
Let's end Anti-Circumvention. We should own the things we buy! (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 51 points 10 months ago (10 children)

If we can convince the ignorant masses to stop buying based on consumerism and purchase based on well informed decisions instead then we would see a shift in enshittification or at least have alternatives. But that's very unlikely since it's easier to conform and fall in line and accept your fate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    It also expects that people are content to actually fix things, or sew tears in clothing, or whatever, and that often requires a little research and initiative in a world where it's been made abundantly cheap and convenient to just replace almost everything.

    I don't think it's necessarily ignorance so much as a combination of laziness and incredible convenience.

    A few years ago I taught myself to fix my laptop screen via Youtube and saved myself a $400 repair, but most people would just chuck it and buy a new one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The issue is not whether people are willing to do it, but whether they should be allowed to.

    I can't think of any situation where disallowing people from repairing their own property makes any sense. The only ones it makes sense to are the ones who profit from it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I can't think of any situation where disallowing people from repairing their own property makes any sense.

    I can think of one, but the issue is largely a thing of the past: old CRT TV's or monitors. If you attempt to repair one without knowing what you're doing, you literally could get yourself killed.

    That said, I still agree with you wholeheartedly. I'd much rather mandate dangerous to repair products be labeled as such, but the design and construction of consumer products should never prohibit the end user from being able to repair their own property.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    It's also super easy to die when your car falls off a jack and you're working underneath, but we don't forbid homemade oil changes nonetheless.

    And the when we had CRTs maintenance was actually encouraged, one of the oldest TVs I remember using had circuit schematics in the manuals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Think of how much people whine about printer ink without A) looking for alternatives and B) questioning why their printer was fucking free (with rebate).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    I got off the inkjet bandwagon almost 30 years ago now. All it takes is doing the math; most print jobs can be done on a compact laser printer, and the ones that can’t can be sent to a print shop for same-day printing, and I still come out ahead, even with binding included.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    I thought this for a long time. However currently I am no longer convinced. The production is so far decoupled from the consumer and often investor (or otherwise) dependant. So the consumer doesn't really necessarily have the chance to support a good company nor do good things need to be offered.

    I short: eat the rich and reform the stock market.

    It's long time propaganda pushing the fault to the consumer (e. G. Footprint invented. By oil companies)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    Yes, yes, yes.

    And drastically reform or reimagine all the IP laws.

    Copyright: 5 years, one optional 5 year extension.

    Patents: 5 years, no extensions. No business methods, no algorithms, no gene expressions.

    Owned only by the individual humans and groups of humans. Cannot be owned by trusts, funds, corporations, estates. Cannot outlive the last human owner in a group.

    All licensing is non-exclusive only! All licensing is irreversible (once you license out the patent non-exclusively, no way to halt midway through the licensing term).

    That way pattents cannot be hoarded by the patent troll entities. Since all exclusive agreements are forbidden, no way to corner the market! Inventors are free to license their inventions all over and cannot be strong armed into an exclusive deal.

    In other words, ownerships, paywalls, and corporate control must be severely curtailed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent