Technology

58061 readers

3437 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

499

Appeals court halts return of net neutrality | The Sixth Circuit’s temporary stay comes only weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference, weakening the FCC (www.theverge.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal appeals court has agreed to halt the reinstatement of net neutrality rules until August 5th, while the court considers whether more permanent action is justified.

It’s the latest setback in a long back and forth on net neutrality — the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should not be able to block or throttle internet traffic in a discriminatory manner.

The current FCC, which has three Democratic and two Republican commissioners, voted in April to bring back net neutrality. The 3–2 vote was divided along party lines.

Broadband providers have since challenged the FCC’s action, which is potentially more vulnerable after the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down Chevron deference — a legal doctrine that instructed courts to defer to an agency’s expert decisions except in a very narrow range of circumstances.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matt Schettenhelm said in a report prior to the court’s ruling that he doesn’t expect the FCC to prevail in court, in large part due to the demise of Chevron.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I find it absolutely astounding that the president appoints the judges for the highest courts in the land.

Which fucking morons thought that would be a good idea? That's obviously going to be abused.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A bunch of slavermasters invented this system for exactly this purpose.

And yes, they were disgusting morons.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

A bunch of idealistic revolutionaries ove 300 years ago. We just haven't fixed the problems because people now worship said revolutionaries.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Their system is a natural result of their "ideals": racism, slavery, classism, privilege, patriarchy, theft, genocide, etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

We are talking about people who were somewhat contemporary with the utopian movement, who are considered to be the an ideological ancestor to socialism. Some utopians had slavery backed in. Them being flawed doesnt make them not idealists, name a revolutionary movement that didnt pull shit like early American government or whatever schizo shit the French revolution devolved into before Napoleon.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't know that I'd call them idealistic. They were landed nobles who didn't want to pay the increased taxes levied on them. Which in turn were to pay for the war their government had fought on their behalf to protect them from the native people whose land they had stolen. By exterminating those native people.

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

They were idealistic in that a lot of them subscribed to the ideals of the enlightenment which as a reminder was not a working class movement. Most of the compromises they made were innate issues of their era, but there is still that massive throughline within a lot of it that assumes that those in power are statesmen not demagogues. The problem is that I doubt they would expect the very checks and balances to be used by the demagogues they feared.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

The federalist papers very much show they were aware of that threat.