Fun fact, a company has no right to good PR. You're welcome to champion an effort to put a "right to good PR" into law, while the rest of us champion right to repair.

Don't you think it would be better to, for instance, regulate dangerous components instead of preventing me from repairing the device that I own with parts I procure? Wouldn't the world be better off if all parts were good, instead of if companies had the right to look good at all times?

Sure. And while a company has no right to good PR, you currently also have no right to support from manufacturers when repairing products you own. As such, we are discussing new legislation for this ‘right to repair’ where (as with all new legislation) the wants of various parties are relevant because it affects the ability of that legislation to get passed.

You can argue that the wants of multi billion dollar corporations should be irrelevant, but the current political system nonetheless allows their option to carry weight.

> And while a company has no right to good PR, you currently also have no right to support from manufacturers when repairing products you own.

Which is why I'm advocating right to repair legislation, not right to good PR legislation.

With reference to GP: "I still think a companies right to good PR is lower priority than right to repair."

I find it really strange when individuals, against their own interests, advocate for the "rights" of a giant multi-trillion dollar company. Especially silly ones like Apple's right to look good. They can advocate for themselves. Let's look out for us, and let them look out for them. They've already paid lobbyists and lawyers to do so -- why do it for free?

I’m not arguing against R2R - I’m just saying that we should be realistic about the objections and opposition we will face.