27
votes
The American Farm Bureau Federation and John Deere have signed a 'Memorandum of Understanding' allowing US customers to fix their own equipment
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- US Farmers win right to repair John Deere equipment
- Published
- Jan 9 2023
- Word count
- 44 words
Farmers have not won the right to repair per Louis Rossman, a right-to-repair expert. This is just a PR stunt by John Deere to get people to feel good and forget about things.
This is exactly the kinda thing that makes me wonder if the thread title should be different, or if it'd be good to have a
misleadingtag that shows up similarly to spoiler tags. The reality of the situation and the title of this article are completely at odds with each other, and I'm uncomfortable with that going unmarked.I've added the tag "misleading" but I think you're right and this could stand to be updated.
I think Louis Rossmann is great, I really respect him and all that he has been fighting for, and he is probably right about all this not really being as significant or straightforward as is being reported... so I totally understand the tag change. However, I personally don't think the title of the topic should be changed just because of his (and his guest's) suspicions on the matter.
I get what you're saying, but I think that there is a real issue, which is that granting a memorandum of understanding is not actually a legal win in the way that many places are reporting. Farmers absolutely have not won the right to repair. They have a statement from John Deere that they support farmers fixing their own vehicles, but this isn't legislation or any kind of granting of rights.
What they have is a letter from John Deere saying "Okay, yes, you can repair stuff!" But there is no rights involved; that would require legislation, a method of enforcement, and some concept of what failure to comply means.
I think it's actually pretty egregious that most places ran the headline "won the right to repair", because that has a specific meaning, and it's just not what happened.
I think you're confusing the legal definition of a "right" and the colloquial definition of a "right" (i.e. the power or privilege to which one is entitled). But the headline is pretty ambiguous, so fair enough, what do you (or @LukeZaz) think the title should be changed to?
My suggestion would be something like this, which is a slightly modified combination of two lines in the article:
p.s. When looking for an alternative title I came across another article by WIRED which is probably a better representation of the issue. So I just posted it:
Right-to-Repair advocates question John Deere’s new promises
I'm not confused about the terms, and I'd also argue that this doesn't actually entitle people to either of those, but that's not even the main point that I'd make. "Right to repair" is a phrase as a whole, enough so that it has its own wikipedia entry; I don't think I'm being nitpicky or obtuse to use that meaning and expect that meaning to be the one being used and reported on by newspapers.
That said, my previous comment where I said that this thread title could stand to be updated... well, I don't know if there's actually any utility in that, after some reflection. I imagine that our corner of the internet will read the comments anyways, and the misleading tag may be sufficient. If you elect to make the change, what you have suggested seems both factual and acceptable.
Yeah, thankfully most people on Tildes actually do seem to read the articles and comments, so I don't think the title change is all that crucial either. But regardless, I have changed it now anyways so hopefully that helps.
I understand the environmental reasons here (only partly?) , but just this line alone feels like it devalues the entire agreement. What constitutes 'trade-secrets' and 'safety features'?
Edit: This is a good article on this, and how this actually stifles right-to-repair campaigns: John Deere commits to letting farmers repair their own tractors (kind of). This is even worse than I originally read, this isn't a right-to-repair package, this is loose permission to barely repair anything at all.
The wording might make it difficult to fully control your equipment, but I can't imagine either clause is strong enough to prevent independent repair and maintenance efforts.
Unless Deere weasels out of making necessary materials and documentation available. We will see.
Deere did almost exactly the same thing in 2018, promising in a Statement of Principles to make repair tools, manuals, software, diagnostics, etc. available by 2021.
Why should we believe that this "Memorandum of Understanding" is different?
Don't. Seems obvious.