Look you have a point, of course a bad DIY operation could be dangerous, but that's not what I'm referring to, or Right to repair it's.

Imagine if your house, could only be repaired (electric, plumbing, etc) by one corporation that is friends with the real state agency that sold you the house. Yes, electric DIY it's a bad idea, but you want the option to hire another trained / certified professional to do the job, maybe because price, quality, speed or reliability. Monopolies have the tendency to end bad for the user.

Their PR of the "one and only" company to do "safe" repairs, and that 3rd party are dangerous it's a lie. Other fast food restaurants are proof of this, they use the same machines, but can hire other companies to repair them, so they have much less downtime.

Edit: Fixed typos

Electric DIY is not categorically “a bad idea” and particularly should not (IMO) be argued so in a pro right-to-repair argument.

I would say it's a bad idea depending on the job.

Replacing an old plug for a new one with USB, sure why not DIYit. Messing around with the breaker panel to add an electric car charger or an HVAC connection, my recommendation would be to hire a professional.

The main issue with AC electricity it's how easy is to learn the basics, and get overconfident because you got something working fast (sadly here I can talk about myself). But not knowing things like the NEC Code makes a difference, and that's when you want a technician or get into the rabbit hole of learning this deeply.

Simple details as ignoring the color code, not using the right AWG for the job, can easily cause a fire, or a hidden dangerous electric shock for future maintenance, making the installation a ticking bomb.

Again, the right to repair should not be confused with "anyone can do repairs", but having the choice of hiring a 3rd party professional to do the job (or do it yourself if you have the training) outside of the original vendor.

Much the same way that someone shouldn't do plumbing, roofing, or repair their brakes if they're not capable to do so, I agree that people who are incapable ought not be doing electrical work. There's no disagreement there.

Rossmanm mentioned that in the focus groups he ran people tended to believe that a manufacturer was more competent at repairs by default, even without evidence, but it's worth saying:

Show me any actual data that people being able to see human readable error codes would result in more injuries.

Even if that were somehow the case, demonstrate that the status quo would be less dangerous than putting the company in a position where it had more of an incentive to make ALL repairs safer. If a repair process is hazardous enough to make the machines barely safe enough to use if maintained by authorized repairmen, than that status quo discourages the company from making the repair process safer in general.

The correct thing to do would be to say that they need cleaning not that they’re broken.

Much like the right to repair the problem here is that the manufacturer is lying, it’s just that the lie is slightly different.

What if the machine does say it needs cleaning?

If "it needs cleaning" is hidden behind an error code that is pay-to-decipher over the phone, it clearly doesn't.

Still there should not be just one company who is able to service machines like these. Your company should be able to hire whatever company they see fit to repair such a thing and the manufacturer should be able to provide the information (plans etc) necessary to do so.

If you repair a car you can go to most mechanics, not just to the manufacturer. Everything else is monopolism

So in that example, either the authorized maintenance employs gods instead of normal people or the consumers are missing both eyes and possibly half the brain.

Because it doesn't take a genius to understand cleaning needs to be thorough, and the authorized cleaner isn't employing the best and brightest with CEO level salaries.