#ShowerThoughts: one simple way to reduce the flood of #eWaste would be to say to vendors, you can't sell new computers (including anything that runs an OS) in our country without a 10 year full replacement guarantee, or more. That way hardware companies would have an incentive to make devices that last, and provide at least 10 years of software updates.

@strypey @kungtotte

It’s a good idea. I think it would stifle innovation, though. If every company had to commit to that level of money and time we would not have neat things like <insert pretty much everything on Kickstarter ever>.

I think Right to Repair is the better way to go at this point.

@Skypilot most crowdfunded tech depends on generic parts made by upstream manufacturers. Companies who mostly assemble off-the-shelf stuff are the customers of their upstream and could pass on the guarantee obligations on their components. But mostly hardware designers and manufacturers would have a powerful incentive to.stop doing #PlannedObsolescence and stuff would get more durable all round.

@strypey @Skypilot firstly I don't think it would stop innovation as much as it would stop stupid cash-grabs and reskinned existing products. Like that blender thing that got Silicon Valley all in a bother.

Forcing maintenance onto manufacturers only means they have to think through their entire production line instead of throwing stuff on the market and not caring what happens.


@strypey @Skypilot and secondly, does every kick-started product idea deserve to exist? I don't think it does. People who are truly innovative will not be stopped by these rules, and maybe what the world needs is innovation in the area of sustainability and repairability instead of how many RFID chips you can pack into a thing or how much machine learning buzzwords you can come up with.

> maybe what the world needs is innovation in the area of sustainability and repairability


@kungtotte @Skypilot @strypey

You are of course right that not every kickstarted idea should exist. But those that get funded get to try. And it’s not my place to second guess those who vote for it with their dollars. I can speak against it, and I can refuse to fund it (unless it’s tax-funded, which is why tax funding is pure evil), but that’s the end of my valid input.

@billstclair @strypey @Skypilot I'm from Sweden and I'm a registered member of the Left Party.

It's safe to say you and I have diametrically opposed views on this matter. Tax funding as a concept is a fantastic idea. This doesn't mean that all government spending is wise. Similarly to Kickstarter. Great concept, doesn't mean all the projects are great.

Opposing the concept because you don't like some implementations is foolish at best.

@kungtotte @Skypilot @strypey

I don't care what taxes are used for. Extortion is a heinous crime no matter the reason. Kickstarter donations are voluntary. Taxes not so much.

@billstclair @strypey @Skypilot like I said, diametrically opposed. I think you've got a broken world view, and I wish you the best of luck with it.

@kungtotte @Skypilot @strypey

I have an unpopular world view. Most of the world has been brainwashed into believing they need to be told what to do by a gang of professional liars (elected "officials"), and to pay for wars and other expensive boondoggles by having their money extorted. Twenty years of watching politics has taught me otherwise.

The wages of socialism are mass death. Economic laws are just as unforgiving as gravity.

But I don't expect the world to change before I die in ten or twenty years, so I mostly ignore the bastards, and spend my time doing what I love.


Property is theft and most examples of it require state enforcement of the exortions involved ("rents"), just as much as taxes do. You're not going to get rid of one without also getting rid of the other.
@kungtotte @Skypilot


Obviously, we won't be agreeing on anything here.

I view property as a basic premise of civilization, beginning with self ownership. Without property, there are no contracts, there is no money, there isn't even barter.

I can see distinguishing real estate from personal property, as the Georgists do, though I'm not a Georgist, but I can't even imagine a world without personal property.

But maybe when you said "property" you meant "real estate".

@Skypilot @kungtotte

> when you said "property" you meant "real estate".

Yes. I think that's pretty clear from the opening quote (from #Proudhon). I can't think of a way that "owning" one's own body could be theft ;) BTW Proudhon also said "property is freedom", when applied to personal belongings, a right of occupation in a home, use of a workplace etc. In case you're interested, #JamesCorbett podcasted Proudhon's book 'What is Property':

@Skypilot @kungtotte

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.