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

Technology

59636 readers
2707 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
[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The delegates all predicated their votes to make it look like Hillary had already won before the elections even started

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So you are saying that millions of people were swayed by super delegates? It was extremely early, NH early, that people started getting pumped that sanders could win. The media hyped up the race despite it never being close.

It's grasping at straws to claim that this is why she demolished him.

[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The race started with Hillary having a commanding lead because the superdelegates were allowed to pre vote. It was clearly intended to manipulate the voters. Let’s not feign ignorance.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

She demolished him in votes. You take super delegates out, she still destroys him.

Pretending that you know that it was meant to influence the voters is nonsense, but pretending that this actually swayed enough that it might have made it even close is just downright ridiculous.

[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You’re just being purposely obtuse. If you see that she already has a commanding lead before the first vote is cast then you might just not vote if you prefer someone else. Hillary was the DNC’s person and they did what they could to give her advantages.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -2 points 4 months ago

You’re just being purposely obtuse

Projection. Find me one person who didn't vote because of the superdelegates or voted a certain way because of the superdelegates. After that we can discuss whether or not we think it's reasonable to believe it may have swung in 12 points.

Hillary was the DNC’s person and they did what they could to give her advantages.

Certainly she was their person, but there is scant evidence that they did anything to make this happen. The emails would have revealed a whole lot more if that was the case. Remember, one of the worst things that came out of the emails that was a focal point of the complaints, was saying mean things about sanders. Thats how bad it was. Mean things. Maybe this is all "they could to give her advantages" but if that's the case then the whole argument is silly.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Millions were swayed by lies spun by corporate media.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

The media hyped up the race. An actual race is far more profitable for them than the reality that Clinton was clearly going to win from the start.

Sanders also go the most positive coverage in the media.