71–80 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>> more governmental regulation, such as the right to repair itself. Wanting more personal freedoms is generally considered a right-wing view. Creating a right to repair is about placing limits on corporations, not actual people. Try telling people that they can only use "original" parts in their guns and suddenly the entire NRA will be on the streets demanding a constitutional amendment in support of right-to-repair…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the devices aren't illegal, and have legal uses, but eBay is being held responsible for the illegal ways end users use these devices. The only real violation that might have occurred here is not removing listings for these devices where they are explicitly marketed for illegal purposes. Short that, they need to actually justify passing a law outlawing these devices, or they need to enforce the existing laws a…
The devices are illegal to sell and install. EBay seems to be squarely in the first business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally being tried in court under the Clean Air Act. How does this circumvent due process?
They want eBay to enforce the law on merchants.
My understanding is that such parts are not by themselves illegal. The crime is actually using them on the road. My understanding was that they were legal for track purposes. I would never want to say that people should be able to defeat emissions, but a part of me does not like the idea that every vehicle owner is beholden to the OEM for parts in perpetuity. The "right to repair" people should be all over this fight…
[flagged]
What I'm saying is that by casting right-to-repair as leftist (or rightist) just muddies the waters of what leftism is without providing any guiding context about why people might be for or against the right to repair. In any case, there's very few parts of the governmental-regulation spectrum that are unambiguously left or right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a multitude or purposes. Improved power being one, improved reliability being another. Modern diesel emissions equipment fails regularly, often in hard to diagnose and repair ways. If you spent $100k on a truck, and you could spend $2k more to 'delete' some emissions equipment to prevent $10k+ worth of repairs in the future, would you do it?
It's not on you to decide that I get to breathe in carcinogens.
At least cars have cabin air filters. I get to suck it straight in unfiltered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It isn't just 100K trucks. I drive a 2013 VW diesel, and this year the warranty covered an EGR and a DPF, which is exactly the kind of thing deletes remove from the vehicle. That's about $6K in work on a vehicle I paid $14K for a couple of years ago. Next time, when it is out of warranty, should I take the car to the junk yard? Or delete them and never have another issue? Which is really better for the planet? Before…
Imagine if the warranty was a federal minimum 300k miles/20 years. I bet they would design the components so the labor time is zero to replace them.
Finally the billion dollar online marketplaces get held to a similar standard to real mom and pop shops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally being tried in court under the Clean Air Act. How does this circumvent due process?
They want eBay to enforce the law on merchants.