10 ms·

I think it is important to note that the legal principle that allows the FCC to make rulings like this is called Chevron Deference, and many consider it to be u

I think it is important to note that the legal principle that allows the FCC to make rulings like this is called Chevron Deference, and many consider it to be under attack. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...

anonymouse008 3y ago
Congress should have gotten off their hands and written something by now, same with Crypto legislation. “Chevron Deference” breeds tyranny through legislative apathy
- skybrian 3y ago
  From a practical point of view, it's hard to say whether Congress would make better or worse decisions, and it's probably good that the government can make decisions about new technologies while Congress is mostly dysfunctional. Maybe the thing that guards against tyranny is that Congress can override them (by passing a law) if regulators screw up badly enough? At least, in theory. Just like, in theory, the people could elect a better Congress.
- mullingitover 3y ago
  It's by design. Legislators aren't and can't be competent regulators, and they know this. Congress can't even handle managing fiscal policy sanely, and that's the one job they can't delegate.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - EasyMark 3y ago
    look no further than the recent border bill that got the "no not like that, it wasn't supposed to work". Now they have to answer for it in november, a major piece of legislation in their favor and they left it on the floor because the maniac running the party has hurt feelings on not being included.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bloppe 3y ago
  Saying "Congress should" is basically abdicating solving the problem
- jjeaff 3y ago
  No, Chevron deference breeds sanity. it would be insane to think that every little detail of complex regulatory structure must be outlined specifically in legislation in order for it to be valid. For example, legislation gives the EPA the power to regulate waterways. Chevron deference allows the EPA to use its expertise to write rules that say you can't dump benzine into the river. Without Chevron deference, someone who wants to dump benzine in the river could challenge the EPA saying that the law doesn't specifically say you can't dump benzine in the river. Imagine relying on our elected officials to come up with a list of what is and isn't considered toxic.
  - godzillabrennus 3y ago
    Regulations and regulators existed before 1984 when the case was argued. In my opinion, it's a good idea to curtail the power of government whenever possible. I'd rather Congress specify in a bill/law that a committee of leading experts from the private sector and the advocacy side of any given subject matter weigh in yearly on any topic before regulations can be changed rather than blindly hoping regulators know what they are doing.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      Curtailing the power of government means upholding the Chevron Deference, obviously. If every little thing now becomes an open question of law, we exist in a vacuum of power where courts arbitrarily decide all sorts of things, giving massive amounts of power to the government. Uncertainty breeds timidness. In order for people to have freedom to act, they need to know in advance what is legal and what is not.
    - djur 3y ago
      Chevron was ruled in 1984 but it was a codification of principles that had already been in practice. It was a standard Supreme Court ruling, a formalization of precedent. After all, some degree of deference to executive interpretation is required, because it's impossible to write truly unambiguous law in any regular language. > a committee of leading experts from the private sector and the advocacy side of any given subject matter weigh in yearly on any topic before regulations can be changed This is part of the design of regulatory agencies. Rulings like this come after an extensive process of consultation and public comment.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  Our country is falling apart because of the current level of congressional ineptitude. One party refuses to support important legislation they specifically asked for because it may give the opposition party a positive news article. Wishing the Congress had to study and pass legislation for all enforcement and regulation of society is tantamount to accelerationism.
  - godzillabrennus 3y ago
    The border bill was not what the GOP was asking for. It was a compromise and not enough of one to get the deal done with the most fringe of that party. We are a divided house.
    - js2 3y ago
      It is quite literally what the GOP asked for not even 12 weeks ago (Dec 6, 2023): > Republicans on Wednesday blocked an emergency spending bill to fund the war in Ukraine, demanding strict new border restrictions in exchange and severely jeopardizing President Biden’s push to replenish the war chests of American allies before the end of the year. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/politics/senate-ukraine-aid-bill.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/politics/senate-ukrain... The Democrats said okay. Senators Sinema, Lankford (literally the 2nd most conservative senator according to his own congressional page), and Murphy spent the last couple months negotiating a new bill. Trump then tanked it saying it would help Biden: > Republican front-runner Donald Trump said he wants to be held responsible for blocking a bipartisan border security bill in the works in the Senate as President Biden seeks emergency authority to rein in a record surge of unauthorized border crossings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/27/trump-border-biden/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/27/trump-bor... Now the GOP house refuses to bring the bill to the floor: > House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson declared it "dead on arrival" if it reaches his chamber. https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1226427234/senate-border-deal-reached https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1226427234/senate-border-deal... We were a divided government when McConnell was Senate majority leader and Pelosi was House majority leader and still able to pass legislation. What we have now is a House run by clowns. See also the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform debacle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo...
- tw04 3y ago
  >Congress should have gotten off their hands and written something by now, same with Crypto legislation. “Chevron Deference” breeds tyranny through legislative apathy It would be literally impossible for congress to rule on every nuanced thing that Chevron allows agencies to do. Saying "congress should take care of it" shows either an intentional disregard for the roles agencies and their experts play, or a complete misunderstanding of the power it grants to federal agencies. "It breeds tyranny" is absolutely ridiculous. When agencies rule in a manner people find unjust, they sue and win or lose in a court of law based on the content of the policy. It also gives congress a chance to rule on "big ticket" things that do need addressing without causing an absolute standstill having to rule on something as mundane as what the legal weight and length limit should be each season for catching a salmon from federal land in Montana.
- pdntspa 3y ago
  Looks like someone doesn't give a shit about shared resources or tragedies of the commons, and wants to do away with important regulation...
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  Congress can’t reasonably be expected to rule on everything, nor are they equipped with the expertise to do so.
- ortusdux 3y ago
  Congress did act. They passed the TCPA in 1991 knowing full well that Chevron deference would allow the FCC to tweak their interpretation of the law as facts change. Congress doesn't want to have to micromanage things like this. If they did they would write the laws in a way that prevents situations where Chevron comes into play. And anyway, getting rid of Chevron would transfer the agencies powers to the courts, not congress.
  - djur 3y ago
    The language of the bill here, "artificial or prerecorded voice" isn't even ambiguous to a normal person. An AI agent's voice is undeniably "artificial". It'd be a much bigger stretch for the FCC to interpret it otherwise!
- drawkward 3y ago
  Have you listened to our congresspeople? Nothing they do or say suggests to me that they have the capabilities to legislate effectively on technical matters, be they AI, Pollution or Food Safety. We have departments that have traditionally been staffed with SMEs to make these rulings and decisions on behalf of congress, who legislates their existence and budget.
  - cancerhacker 3y ago
    With some sarcasm and much trepidation, I would submit that lobbyists would be more than happy to write the laws that their congresspeople will sign into law, ending the due diligence and oversight of qualified, established government departments. (I know they do this now, but think of how much worse it could be!)
    - drawkward 3y ago
      I completely agree with this viewpoint, but what makes you think that congresspeople are not lobbyists or are somehow less beholden to those who would engage in lobbying? In other words, why would an agency be more persuadable than congress?
- EasyMark 3y ago
  there is simply no way for congress to enact every regulation. This is all a power grab for corporations bankrolling republican judges and congress critters to be able to ignore any regulations they want in order to make a few more bucks.
lettergram 3y ago
Glad to see Chevron Deference at the top here. Basically, the FCC can’t “rule” they can “dictate” and this isn’t a power explicitly granted by congress. It’s some made up judicial rules that say these federal agencies can do it
- throwboatyface 3y ago
  Chevron Reference is the idea that when a statute is ambiguous the agencies can interpret it according to their expert opinion. The alternative is requiring Congress to write every single rule explicitly and pass a law adapting to any change in circumstance or technology. In practice this means "no regulation" because Congress is pretty slow and adding more detail would only make them slower.
  - dantheman 3y ago
    All that has to happen is the agency propose a set of rules and let congress vote. If they can't get it through congress then it should be a rule.
    - yellow_postit 3y ago
      It’s unworkably dysfunctional for “everything” to have to go through congress. If and when agencies overstep that gets resolved through legal challenges.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  Executive agencies are granted authority by the legislature. The legislature can at any time make additional legislation overriding or limiting specific actions taken by executive agencies. It isn't made up.
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago
  Who will think of the poor corporations and their armies of on-retainer lawyers? Of course government is incompetent and can't be reasonable in regulation? Is that the idea? How dare these corporations not be given minutely detailed regulations that they can easily tear apart to pollute to their convenience? You mean you want REASON in government and regulation?
NotSammyHagar 3y ago
It will cause chaos and disaster if congress has to make regulations for every little thing. Congress is so divided the result of Chevron reversal is that huge numbers of usefully regulated utilities, companies, etc will be unregulated. It also doesn't make sense for congress to spend all their time writing regulations, they'd get even less done. Congress can barely pass a budget shortly before the previous budget year ends. Ending the ability of federal agencies to write useful regulations means unregulated spam robocalls! It's the dream of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Rich people are unbounded. They would say we don't need regulations about food safety written by those ninnys in the federal government.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Yes. Heavens forfend if they had to do the job they asked to be elected to do. In short, good. How many here can even map the entire list of all the agencies and corresponding rules, recommendations, and guidance that has the weight of law. << It will cause chaos and disaster if congress has to make regulations for every little thing. Free people pull in all sorts of directions. Its going to be ok.
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    This argument reminds me of people who wish for our credit system to burn down so they don’t owe money anymore. Both are completely short sighted and would result in catastrophic outcomes. We (unfortunately) need credit now. And we (unfortunately) cannot depend on congress to do anything.
  - hedora 3y ago
    They have done the job they were asked to do. Prior courts said that they were going to use Chevron deference when interpreting the laws that congress passed, since it keeps them simpler, and allows the executive branch to apply common sense (while retaining safeguards in case agencies overstep their bounds). The current court has repeatedly decided to arbitrarily reinterpret settled portions of the law by overturning existing rulings. Getting rid of chevron deference would be a continuation of that, though on a scale that probably exceeds the fraction of the US legal code the court has actually read. The current courts' actions are unprecedented in the US. The Supreme Court is not supposed to overturn prior Supreme Court rulings, except in exceptional circumstances. They even went so far as to mostly overturn the 4th amendment when they eliminated the right to privacy as part of the Roe v. Wade ruling. At this point they're looking more like an unchecked legislative branch than a judicial body. This is the reason they are wildly unpopular. They understand this, and they've explicitly said they don't plan to follow the wishes of the electorate. On top of that they've done a lot to undermine US election integrity with recent rulings. However, given ongoing demographic shifts, there's a good chance they'll have to cope with a unified executive and legislative branch. At that point, expect court packing or impeachments. The only other path I see is some sort of apartheid-style setup designed to ignore the votes of anyone that's urban, educated, female, minority, or not elderly.
djur 3y ago
I agree with you on the importance of Chevron deference, but I can't see any court getting to the second step of Chevron with this particular ruling, so no deference would be required. The legislation bans "artificial or prerecorded voices"; AI agents are by definition artificial.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > "Congress should have used more precise language rather than deferring to the supposed "expertise" of members of the administration in order to establish the artificiality of AI" - SCOTUS, in a judgement not yet issued or rendered (and thus currently wholly imagined by me).
  - ortusdux 3y ago
    >"I ctrl-F'ed the document and didn't find the phrase "AI" or "Artificial Intelligence". Overruled." - Strict textualist judge that really loves his new RV.
    - hedora 3y ago
      OK, I normally don't trick LLMs into lying or paste their leavings here, but enjoy: > Here are some potential counterfactual arguments that the Chevron doctrine does not allow the FCC from regulating AI robocalls: - The Communications Act of 1934, which gives the FCC authority to regulate communications by wire and radio, does not explicitly grant the FCC authority to regulate AI technology. Since AI was not envisioned at the time the Act was passed, one could argue that Congress did not intend to delegate regulatory authority over AI to the FCC. Therefore, the FCC's regulation of AI robocalls would fail the first step of the Chevron test as not being in accordance with clear congressional intent. - Even if one argues that the FCC's authority to regulate "communications by wire and radio" could be broadly interpreted to include AI communications technologies, the FCC's specific regulation of AI robocalls could still be seen as an unreasonable interpretation of the Act under the second step of Chevron. Given the lack of explicit mention of AI in the Act, a court may find that the FCC's assertion of authority to regulate AI robocalls through additional restrictions beyond what applies to standard robocalls is an unreasonable stretch of its delegated authority. - The nature of AI technologies is such that they raise novel issues that were not contemplated at the time of the Communications Act. Heavy-handed regulation of emerging AI technologies by the FCC without clear congressional authorization could stifle innovation. Under these circumstances, one could argue that deference to the FCC's interpretation of its authority is unwarranted. - Kagi FastGPT
yttribium 3y ago
This thread wildly misunderstands "chevron deference". "Ending chevron deference" does not somehow throw us into a Mad Max anarchic hellscape where agencies cannot actually do anything, because there is always some standard for what administrative rulemaking is permissible. There is a broader question of how much leeway they have, but clarifying that AI generated voices count as "artificial" under the statute barely requires a regulation, any more than they need one to say "hit in the head with a computer" constitutes an "assault".
- tomoyoirl 3y ago
  Even if it was unclear, ending Chevron deference wouldn’t say “the agency can no longer make these policy interpretations.” It just means that a court ought to test whether that interpretation is in compliance with the law, when that comes up in a dispute (which is something that courts are in the business of in many other areas) more so than simply deferring to the agency’s expertise on the law. (If you look at the original Chevron decision, they were much more interested in trying to get out of the “understand and make determinations about complex environmental issues” business anyway, more so than the “understand the law” business.) Postscript: For your next unfairly downvoted reply I recommend that you explain to someone Citizens United was actually a nonprofit trying to air a movie on cable television and was fighting the FEC over it. (Total hackjob of an organization, mind you. But core political speech.) Some facts are unpopular.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ortusdux 3y ago
  Imagine the following: The FCC fines a company for using AI-generated voices in robocalls. That company appeals the fine. With Chevron intact, the court would need to defer to the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA and dismiss the appeal. With Chevron overturned, the court would be able to advocate for their own interpretation of the TCPA. A favorable judge could just claim textualism, and insist that the TCPA does not apply because it does not explicitly use the word AI. Then it is a slippery slope of forum shopping and companies moving their operations to districts with sympathetic judges.
EasyMark 3y ago
I think the current SCOTUS thrives on chaos (6 of 9 members anyway) and Chevron will go down in flames just like Roe. This is the modern "conservative" party.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kibwen 3y ago
  It's not chaos that the current court thrives on, it's corruption, grift, and baldfaced power grabs.
goodluckchuck 3y ago
Chevron is facially frivolous. So, an agency says you broke the law. You take the agency to court. The court defers to the agency. You’ve been denied your day in court.
- rascul 3y ago
  You might have a hearing held by the agency to determine guilt. There is no separation of powers.
- avidiax 3y ago
  Congress says: "Hey agency! You're the experts. Figure out and enforce the policy details." The agency: we have determined that this action by company X is against our policies. The courts: Congress said that the agency decides the policy. Even if we think an action is inside policy, the agency has Congressional authority to change the policy to put the contested action firmly outside policy. The company should therefore lobby Congress to regulate the agency. Maybe you could make a case about retroactive or post-facto laws, but I suspect the company is not usually claiming that they abide by the letter of the policy, but that the policy is outside the agency's powers.
  - goodluckchuck 3y ago
    Congress makes the laws. The Executive enforces them. Separation of Powers precludes Congress from delegating lawmaking authority to the other branches.
duxup 3y ago
With the speed things move at now I worry about a situation where we have to wait for explicit legislation for every little thing ...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
losvedir 3y ago
I've only read your link there, but aren't you mischaracterizing it? The Chevron doctrine isn't what allows agencies like the FCC to make rulings like this, it's what protects their decisions from being overruled by the courts. That is, even if all the justices privately agreed the agency's interpretation had issues, they'd still defer to it. But without Chevron, in that case, they could overrule it. In this case, considering AI-generated voices "artificial" for the purposes of applying a law seems obvious enough to me that I don't think the Chevron doctrine would apply, personally.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > The Chevron doctrine isn't what allows agencies like the FCC to make rulings like this, it's what protects their decisions from being overruled by the courts. Yes and it's in cases where a law gives authority and expectations to an agency. In the past, it was left up to experienced and qualified agency specialists to work out how best to implement it because 1) it's their job and 2) because Congress knows it can't write every possible contingency into a law. Chevron supports this. The SCotUS case is brought by folks who want to shift that determination from agency specialists to judges who don't have the related experience or qualifications. It would effectively allow endless monkey wrenches to be thrown into the oversight process by corporations who aren't keen on oversight.
  - _null_ 3y ago
    >shift that determination from agency specialists to judges All correct until this bit. They in fact want to shift it back to congress, who should do a better job in specifying what power they delegate to unelected heads of executive branch agencies.
    - boringg 3y ago
      I don't know if you have been following politics recently but this sounds like a bad idea unless the idea is to kill the process (which is the desired outcome of the strategy). Theres no way congress can handle more of a workload nor should they be in charge of this - that should be in the bureaucracy not with the politicos.
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[dead]

anonymouse008 3y ago

Congress should have gotten off their hands and written something by now, same with Crypto legislation. “Chevron Deference” breeds tyranny through legislative apathy

skybrian 3y ago
From a practical point of view, it's hard to say whether Congress would make better or worse decisions, and it's probably good that the government can make decisions about new technologies while Congress is mostly dysfunctional. Maybe the thing that guards against tyranny is that Congress can override them (by passing a law) if regulators screw up badly enough? At least, in theory. Just like, in theory, the people could elect a better Congress.
mullingitover 3y ago
It's by design. Legislators aren't and can't be competent regulators, and they know this. Congress can't even handle managing fiscal policy sanely, and that's the one job they can't delegate.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- EasyMark 3y ago
  look no further than the recent border bill that got the "no not like that, it wasn't supposed to work". Now they have to answer for it in november, a major piece of legislation in their favor and they left it on the floor because the maniac running the party has hurt feelings on not being included.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bloppe 3y ago
Saying "Congress should" is basically abdicating solving the problem
jjeaff 3y ago
No, Chevron deference breeds sanity. it would be insane to think that every little detail of complex regulatory structure must be outlined specifically in legislation in order for it to be valid. For example, legislation gives the EPA the power to regulate waterways. Chevron deference allows the EPA to use its expertise to write rules that say you can't dump benzine into the river. Without Chevron deference, someone who wants to dump benzine in the river could challenge the EPA saying that the law doesn't specifically say you can't dump benzine in the river. Imagine relying on our elected officials to come up with a list of what is and isn't considered toxic.
- godzillabrennus 3y ago
  Regulations and regulators existed before 1984 when the case was argued. In my opinion, it's a good idea to curtail the power of government whenever possible. I'd rather Congress specify in a bill/law that a committee of leading experts from the private sector and the advocacy side of any given subject matter weigh in yearly on any topic before regulations can be changed rather than blindly hoping regulators know what they are doing.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Curtailing the power of government means upholding the Chevron Deference, obviously. If every little thing now becomes an open question of law, we exist in a vacuum of power where courts arbitrarily decide all sorts of things, giving massive amounts of power to the government. Uncertainty breeds timidness. In order for people to have freedom to act, they need to know in advance what is legal and what is not.
  - djur 3y ago
    Chevron was ruled in 1984 but it was a codification of principles that had already been in practice. It was a standard Supreme Court ruling, a formalization of precedent. After all, some degree of deference to executive interpretation is required, because it's impossible to write truly unambiguous law in any regular language. > a committee of leading experts from the private sector and the advocacy side of any given subject matter weigh in yearly on any topic before regulations can be changed This is part of the design of regulatory agencies. Rulings like this come after an extensive process of consultation and public comment.
unethical_ban 3y ago
Our country is falling apart because of the current level of congressional ineptitude. One party refuses to support important legislation they specifically asked for because it may give the opposition party a positive news article. Wishing the Congress had to study and pass legislation for all enforcement and regulation of society is tantamount to accelerationism.
- godzillabrennus 3y ago
  The border bill was not what the GOP was asking for. It was a compromise and not enough of one to get the deal done with the most fringe of that party. We are a divided house.
  - js2 3y ago
    It is quite literally what the GOP asked for not even 12 weeks ago (Dec 6, 2023): > Republicans on Wednesday blocked an emergency spending bill to fund the war in Ukraine, demanding strict new border restrictions in exchange and severely jeopardizing President Biden’s push to replenish the war chests of American allies before the end of the year. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/politics/senate-ukraine-aid-bill.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/politics/senate-ukrain... The Democrats said okay. Senators Sinema, Lankford (literally the 2nd most conservative senator according to his own congressional page), and Murphy spent the last couple months negotiating a new bill. Trump then tanked it saying it would help Biden: > Republican front-runner Donald Trump said he wants to be held responsible for blocking a bipartisan border security bill in the works in the Senate as President Biden seeks emergency authority to rein in a record surge of unauthorized border crossings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/27/trump-border-biden/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/27/trump-bor... Now the GOP house refuses to bring the bill to the floor: > House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson declared it "dead on arrival" if it reaches his chamber. https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1226427234/senate-border-deal-reached https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1226427234/senate-border-deal... We were a divided government when McConnell was Senate majority leader and Pelosi was House majority leader and still able to pass legislation. What we have now is a House run by clowns. See also the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform debacle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo...
tw04 3y ago
>Congress should have gotten off their hands and written something by now, same with Crypto legislation. “Chevron Deference” breeds tyranny through legislative apathy It would be literally impossible for congress to rule on every nuanced thing that Chevron allows agencies to do. Saying "congress should take care of it" shows either an intentional disregard for the roles agencies and their experts play, or a complete misunderstanding of the power it grants to federal agencies. "It breeds tyranny" is absolutely ridiculous. When agencies rule in a manner people find unjust, they sue and win or lose in a court of law based on the content of the policy. It also gives congress a chance to rule on "big ticket" things that do need addressing without causing an absolute standstill having to rule on something as mundane as what the legal weight and length limit should be each season for catching a salmon from federal land in Montana.
pdntspa 3y ago
Looks like someone doesn't give a shit about shared resources or tragedies of the commons, and wants to do away with important regulation...
BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
Congress can’t reasonably be expected to rule on everything, nor are they equipped with the expertise to do so.
ortusdux 3y ago
Congress did act. They passed the TCPA in 1991 knowing full well that Chevron deference would allow the FCC to tweak their interpretation of the law as facts change. Congress doesn't want to have to micromanage things like this. If they did they would write the laws in a way that prevents situations where Chevron comes into play. And anyway, getting rid of Chevron would transfer the agencies powers to the courts, not congress.
- djur 3y ago
  The language of the bill here, "artificial or prerecorded voice" isn't even ambiguous to a normal person. An AI agent's voice is undeniably "artificial". It'd be a much bigger stretch for the FCC to interpret it otherwise!
drawkward 3y ago
Have you listened to our congresspeople? Nothing they do or say suggests to me that they have the capabilities to legislate effectively on technical matters, be they AI, Pollution or Food Safety. We have departments that have traditionally been staffed with SMEs to make these rulings and decisions on behalf of congress, who legislates their existence and budget.
- cancerhacker 3y ago
  With some sarcasm and much trepidation, I would submit that lobbyists would be more than happy to write the laws that their congresspeople will sign into law, ending the due diligence and oversight of qualified, established government departments. (I know they do this now, but think of how much worse it could be!)
  - drawkward 3y ago
    I completely agree with this viewpoint, but what makes you think that congresspeople are not lobbyists or are somehow less beholden to those who would engage in lobbying? In other words, why would an agency be more persuadable than congress?
EasyMark 3y ago
there is simply no way for congress to enact every regulation. This is all a power grab for corporations bankrolling republican judges and congress critters to be able to ignore any regulations they want in order to make a few more bucks.

lettergram 3y ago

Glad to see Chevron Deference at the top here. Basically, the FCC can’t “rule” they can “dictate” and this isn’t a power explicitly granted by congress. It’s some made up judicial rules that say these federal agencies can do it

throwboatyface 3y ago
Chevron Reference is the idea that when a statute is ambiguous the agencies can interpret it according to their expert opinion. The alternative is requiring Congress to write every single rule explicitly and pass a law adapting to any change in circumstance or technology. In practice this means "no regulation" because Congress is pretty slow and adding more detail would only make them slower.
- dantheman 3y ago
  All that has to happen is the agency propose a set of rules and let congress vote. If they can't get it through congress then it should be a rule.
  - yellow_postit 3y ago
    It’s unworkably dysfunctional for “everything” to have to go through congress. If and when agencies overstep that gets resolved through legal challenges.
unethical_ban 3y ago
Executive agencies are granted authority by the legislature. The legislature can at any time make additional legislation overriding or limiting specific actions taken by executive agencies. It isn't made up.
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
Who will think of the poor corporations and their armies of on-retainer lawyers? Of course government is incompetent and can't be reasonable in regulation? Is that the idea? How dare these corporations not be given minutely detailed regulations that they can easily tear apart to pollute to their convenience? You mean you want REASON in government and regulation?

NotSammyHagar 3y ago

It will cause chaos and disaster if congress has to make regulations for every little thing. Congress is so divided the result of Chevron reversal is that huge numbers of usefully regulated utilities, companies, etc will be unregulated. It also doesn't make sense for congress to spend all their time writing regulations, they'd get even less done. Congress can barely pass a budget shortly before the previous budget year ends. Ending the ability of federal agencies to write useful regulations means unregulated spam robocalls! It's the dream of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Rich people are unbounded. They would say we don't need regulations about food safety written by those ninnys in the federal government.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Yes. Heavens forfend if they had to do the job they asked to be elected to do. In short, good. How many here can even map the entire list of all the agencies and corresponding rules, recommendations, and guidance that has the weight of law. << It will cause chaos and disaster if congress has to make regulations for every little thing. Free people pull in all sorts of directions. Its going to be ok.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  This argument reminds me of people who wish for our credit system to burn down so they don’t owe money anymore. Both are completely short sighted and would result in catastrophic outcomes. We (unfortunately) need credit now. And we (unfortunately) cannot depend on congress to do anything.
- hedora 3y ago
  They have done the job they were asked to do. Prior courts said that they were going to use Chevron deference when interpreting the laws that congress passed, since it keeps them simpler, and allows the executive branch to apply common sense (while retaining safeguards in case agencies overstep their bounds). The current court has repeatedly decided to arbitrarily reinterpret settled portions of the law by overturning existing rulings. Getting rid of chevron deference would be a continuation of that, though on a scale that probably exceeds the fraction of the US legal code the court has actually read. The current courts' actions are unprecedented in the US. The Supreme Court is not supposed to overturn prior Supreme Court rulings, except in exceptional circumstances. They even went so far as to mostly overturn the 4th amendment when they eliminated the right to privacy as part of the Roe v. Wade ruling. At this point they're looking more like an unchecked legislative branch than a judicial body. This is the reason they are wildly unpopular. They understand this, and they've explicitly said they don't plan to follow the wishes of the electorate. On top of that they've done a lot to undermine US election integrity with recent rulings. However, given ongoing demographic shifts, there's a good chance they'll have to cope with a unified executive and legislative branch. At that point, expect court packing or impeachments. The only other path I see is some sort of apartheid-style setup designed to ignore the votes of anyone that's urban, educated, female, minority, or not elderly.

djur 3y ago

I agree with you on the importance of Chevron deference, but I can't see any court getting to the second step of Chevron with this particular ruling, so no deference would be required. The legislation bans "artificial or prerecorded voices"; AI agents are by definition artificial.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> "Congress should have used more precise language rather than deferring to the supposed "expertise" of members of the administration in order to establish the artificiality of AI" - SCOTUS, in a judgement not yet issued or rendered (and thus currently wholly imagined by me).
- ortusdux 3y ago
  >"I ctrl-F'ed the document and didn't find the phrase "AI" or "Artificial Intelligence". Overruled." - Strict textualist judge that really loves his new RV.
  - hedora 3y ago
    OK, I normally don't trick LLMs into lying or paste their leavings here, but enjoy: > Here are some potential counterfactual arguments that the Chevron doctrine does not allow the FCC from regulating AI robocalls: - The Communications Act of 1934, which gives the FCC authority to regulate communications by wire and radio, does not explicitly grant the FCC authority to regulate AI technology. Since AI was not envisioned at the time the Act was passed, one could argue that Congress did not intend to delegate regulatory authority over AI to the FCC. Therefore, the FCC's regulation of AI robocalls would fail the first step of the Chevron test as not being in accordance with clear congressional intent. - Even if one argues that the FCC's authority to regulate "communications by wire and radio" could be broadly interpreted to include AI communications technologies, the FCC's specific regulation of AI robocalls could still be seen as an unreasonable interpretation of the Act under the second step of Chevron. Given the lack of explicit mention of AI in the Act, a court may find that the FCC's assertion of authority to regulate AI robocalls through additional restrictions beyond what applies to standard robocalls is an unreasonable stretch of its delegated authority. - The nature of AI technologies is such that they raise novel issues that were not contemplated at the time of the Communications Act. Heavy-handed regulation of emerging AI technologies by the FCC without clear congressional authorization could stifle innovation. Under these circumstances, one could argue that deference to the FCC's interpretation of its authority is unwarranted. - Kagi FastGPT

yttribium 3y ago

This thread wildly misunderstands "chevron deference". "Ending chevron deference" does not somehow throw us into a Mad Max anarchic hellscape where agencies cannot actually do anything, because there is always some standard for what administrative rulemaking is permissible. There is a broader question of how much leeway they have, but clarifying that AI generated voices count as "artificial" under the statute barely requires a regulation, any more than they need one to say "hit in the head with a computer" constitutes an "assault".

tomoyoirl 3y ago
Even if it was unclear, ending Chevron deference wouldn’t say “the agency can no longer make these policy interpretations.” It just means that a court ought to test whether that interpretation is in compliance with the law, when that comes up in a dispute (which is something that courts are in the business of in many other areas) more so than simply deferring to the agency’s expertise on the law. (If you look at the original Chevron decision, they were much more interested in trying to get out of the “understand and make determinations about complex environmental issues” business anyway, more so than the “understand the law” business.) Postscript: For your next unfairly downvoted reply I recommend that you explain to someone Citizens United was actually a nonprofit trying to air a movie on cable television and was fighting the FEC over it. (Total hackjob of an organization, mind you. But core political speech.) Some facts are unpopular.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ortusdux 3y ago
Imagine the following: The FCC fines a company for using AI-generated voices in robocalls. That company appeals the fine. With Chevron intact, the court would need to defer to the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA and dismiss the appeal. With Chevron overturned, the court would be able to advocate for their own interpretation of the TCPA. A favorable judge could just claim textualism, and insist that the TCPA does not apply because it does not explicitly use the word AI. Then it is a slippery slope of forum shopping and companies moving their operations to districts with sympathetic judges.

EasyMark 3y ago

I think the current SCOTUS thrives on chaos (6 of 9 members anyway) and Chevron will go down in flames just like Roe. This is the modern "conservative" party.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kibwen 3y ago
It's not chaos that the current court thrives on, it's corruption, grift, and baldfaced power grabs.

goodluckchuck 3y ago

Chevron is facially frivolous. So, an agency says you broke the law. You take the agency to court. The court defers to the agency. You’ve been denied your day in court.

rascul 3y ago
You might have a hearing held by the agency to determine guilt. There is no separation of powers.
avidiax 3y ago
Congress says: "Hey agency! You're the experts. Figure out and enforce the policy details." The agency: we have determined that this action by company X is against our policies. The courts: Congress said that the agency decides the policy. Even if we think an action is inside policy, the agency has Congressional authority to change the policy to put the contested action firmly outside policy. The company should therefore lobby Congress to regulate the agency. Maybe you could make a case about retroactive or post-facto laws, but I suspect the company is not usually claiming that they abide by the letter of the policy, but that the policy is outside the agency's powers.
- goodluckchuck 3y ago
  Congress makes the laws. The Executive enforces them. Separation of Powers precludes Congress from delegating lawmaking authority to the other branches.

duxup 3y ago

With the speed things move at now I worry about a situation where we have to wait for explicit legislation for every little thing ...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

losvedir 3y ago

I've only read your link there, but aren't you mischaracterizing it? The Chevron doctrine isn't what allows agencies like the FCC to make rulings like this, it's what protects their decisions from being overruled by the courts. That is, even if all the justices privately agreed the agency's interpretation had issues, they'd still defer to it. But without Chevron, in that case, they could overrule it. In this case, considering AI-generated voices "artificial" for the purposes of applying a law seems obvious enough to me that I don't think the Chevron doctrine would apply, personally.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> The Chevron doctrine isn't what allows agencies like the FCC to make rulings like this, it's what protects their decisions from being overruled by the courts. Yes and it's in cases where a law gives authority and expectations to an agency. In the past, it was left up to experienced and qualified agency specialists to work out how best to implement it because 1) it's their job and 2) because Congress knows it can't write every possible contingency into a law. Chevron supports this. The SCotUS case is brought by folks who want to shift that determination from agency specialists to judges who don't have the related experience or qualifications. It would effectively allow endless monkey wrenches to be thrown into the oversight process by corporations who aren't keen on oversight.
- _null_ 3y ago
  >shift that determination from agency specialists to judges All correct until this bit. They in fact want to shift it back to congress, who should do a better job in specifying what power they delegate to unelected heads of executive branch agencies.
  - boringg 3y ago
    I don't know if you have been following politics recently but this sounds like a bad idea unless the idea is to kill the process (which is the desired outcome of the strategy). Theres no way congress can handle more of a workload nor should they be in charge of this - that should be in the bureaucracy not with the politicos.

PM_me_your_math 3y ago

[dead]