> The concept that you should be able to repair it with a screwdriver and a 6-pack is outdated.
I agree. But no one asks for that.
It is my understanding that the "right to repair" initiative, as presented by Louis Rossmann, only asks that the people who are willing to do the repair themselves are able to get the replacement parts, the tools (e.g. custom screwdrivers, flash programmers ...) and the expertise (e.g. schematics, binary or API specifications, ...) necessary to perform it. It does not ask that the repair should require no skills.
> and at some point it just doesn't scale
To the best of my knowledge, the mentioned "right to repair" initiative does not ask that it should be possible to e.g. repair a tractor using only bike shop tools. It merely asks that an independent tractor repair shop should be able to do it. And for that it would need parts, tools and expertise to be available.
> it's pretty risky
Yes. If repairs are performed without proper parts, without proper tools and without proper expertise, they are risky. That is also one of the reasons why the right to repair asks for those to be available.
===
There is an argument that limiting the availability of parts, tools and expertise would limit the number of people attempting to perform the repairs. That would, in theory, in turn limit the number of people that would perform those repairs without the necessary skills, which might potentially be dangerous to the customers.
However, I am not sure if such limiting measures, when applied, have the desired outcome. I think that the demand for repairs is primarily driven by the rate at which the particular kind of devices need it. It is not going to magically go down just because parts, tools and expertise are unavailable.
Consider the availability of schematics for MacBooks, for example. They are not available officially. But it is possible to get them via shady channels. The operation of such channels is risky because it is often illegal. But it is nevertheless being done because there is a large demand for it.
That is why I think that limiting the availability of parts, tools and expertise would not have the desired effect of less people attempting the repairs. It seems more likely to me that the number of people who would be attempting the repairs would remain roughly the same. But since the parts, tools and expertise would be coming via shady channels, they may not be of the sufficient quality. As a result, even some of the people who have the sufficient skills would not be able to provide the repairs of the high-enough quality to be indistinguishable from the repairs provided by the manufacturer.
Therefore, I think that such availability-limiting measures make sub-optimal repairs more frequent, which is exactly the opposite of the goal they are trying to achieve.