Central to the origin story of open-source software is the right to repair, this is the right not just to maintain the items that we purchase but also the ability to adapt them to our needs (as opposed to adapting our needs to the item). Now, software can be a lot more stubborn than physical tools, a hammer doesn’t behave differently when you use it on a leap day, but that alone shouldn’t stop of from being free to modify it for our own ergonomics (dark mode is just one accommodation that has gained momentum in addition to accessibility requirements).
Right to repair means localising control, it encourages local adaptations, local innovation, and local skills. I shouldn’t need to send my fridge to Korea to assess a repair, likewise I shouldn’t need to scream at billion-dollar companies (like an ant to an elephant) to try and help adjust a tool or service to suit my needs. We, citizens as consumers, need to retain the right to repair and furthermore need to enshrine rights to modify software (and algorithm/A.I. balance) where it can be reasonably accommodated relative to the size of the provider and is consistent with the design of the software (much like ring-world digital services are software all the way down (until you hit the unknown ;)).
Corporations can’t act with empathy but people can whether its the designers, the builders, their managers/product-owners or the budget setters that back them, let’s respect humanity and inject a little fairness and control where we can!
— LostLetterbox