this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
748 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

55642 readers
3600 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.

Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”

Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 175 points 2 days ago (12 children)

I’m not an American but my impression is the Supreme Court is mainly designed as a last bulwark to ensure the US never under any circumstances ever does anything remotely good and this isn’t exactly improving that impression.

[–] [email protected] 118 points 2 days ago (5 children)

It's simply an institution meant to interpret laws and their legality. All of that goes out the window when the people in said institution are politically charged, corrupt, or make bad arguments.

[–] BowtiesAreCool 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You said “or” there when really it should be “and”

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago

Considering the context, I took it as an inclusive or.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For some justices, I agree. However, as a general principle, I think of the vast majority of "bad people" as incompetent rather than malicious unless there's proof of guilt. I don't know enough about all 9 justices to comfortably say they're evil or corrupt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It's not about "bad people" or incompetence. It's about fundamentally violent and corrupt systems of controlling humanity and destroying the planet for personal gain...

This rube goldberg system of injustice was literally invented by slavers.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)