6 ms·

This thread wildly misunderstands "chevron deference". "Ending chevron deference" does not somehow throw us into a Mad Max anarchic hellscape where agencies ca

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.
- dantheman 3y ago
  Imagine the FCC goes to congress, proposes a new rule and then congresses passes it. Then there is debate and congress can't abdicate its responsibility.
  - windthrown 3y ago
    In theory sure but have you been following Congress for the past decade? They can't even come to terms on continuing resolution funding bills, let alone pass complex rules related to new contentious technologies. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist but is something that makes you think this might drastically change?
    - Kamq 3y ago
      > In theory sure but have you been following Congress for the past decade? On one hand, fair. On the other hand, you can only coast along on the old post-cold war bi-partisan consensus for so long without getting new consensus before institutions lose their legitimacy (you can already see this happening a bit). We can default back to the last time we had consensus for some things, for some time, but you do need to get it again before big changes happen. If you get to the point where the last time we had consensus is before the majority of the people in the system were alive, you either need to hard pivot your society to focus on ancestor worship, or you need to focus on something you do have consensus on.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        The problem is that the previous consensus was created by corporate centralized media, and in many ways was actually against the interests of most people who accepted it. Now that corporate consensus has fallen apart, so we've got two tribes each focused on the specific ways they were screwed over, with each ascribing the previous state of affairs to the other tribe. In a vacuum their differences could certainly be worked out to support a consensus. But given how well ragebait sensationalism seems to work, and the popularity of feel-good (well, feel-something at least) authoritarian demagogues like Trump, I don't see much hope.
rpmisms 3y ago
Chevron deference would come into play if the FCC tried to say that a test-tube baby was an artificial agent. I support ending the doctrine, because the shadow laws are strong and bad.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  How would it? The FCC aren’t experts on the philosophical or scientific difference between artificial and natural insemination.
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    Under the current interpretation, that would be in their jurisdiction. This is why Chevron deference is dumb.
    - nielsbot 3y ago
      that’s ridiculous
      - rpmisms 3y ago
        I agree. Chevron deference has (indirectly) led to a shoelace being confiscated by the ATF as a machine gun.
        jakogut 3y ago
        Don't forget about Matt Hoover of CRS Firearms being charged for conspiracy to transfer unregistered machine gun conversion devices. His crime? Advertising a trinket known as an "Auto Key Card", a metal business card etched with the outline of a lightning link, a device that--properly manufactured--can make a semi-automatic rifle full-auto. The problem is that this device was nothing more than a drawing on a business card sized piece of steel. It amounts to an egregious first amendment violation at the very least. https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/federal-jury-convicts-two-men-conspiring-transfer-unregistered-machinegun-conversion https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/federal-jury-convicts-t... https://www.pewpewtactical.com/autokeycard-explained/ https://www.pewpewtactical.com/autokeycard-explained/
hedora 3y ago
The problem with your argument is that, for decades, congress has been passing and failing to update laws under the understanding that the courts would apply Chevron deference. If the courts decide to get rid of that, they're intentionally misinterpreting the laws that congress has passed over that time. They're also effectively rewriting a large fraction of US law, despite the fact that the constitution is carefully designed to prevent such a small group of (unelected or elected) people from modifying US law that quickly, and without safe guards. The current Supreme Court has repeatedly undermined separation of powers, and they're explicitly doing so against the wishes of the electorate. Their behavior is fundamentally undemocratic.
- jakogut 3y ago
  > Their behavior is fundamentally undemocratic. Correct, because in the United States, our model of government is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. For all of the flaws of our system of law, the Constitution is considered supreme, and any laws that violate the Constitution are to be considered null and void. The job of the Supreme Court is to decide the Constitutionality of laws. One interpretation of removing Chevron deference is that it's defacto rewriting law, another is that executive agencies have been doing this for decades already. The truth is probably some mix of the two.
  - noobermin 3y ago
    >Constitution is considered supreme, and any laws that violate the Constitution are to be considered null and void. The job of the Supreme Court is to decide the Constitutionality of laws. A plain and non-ideological reading of what you typed is that this is a contradiction at best and saying the SCOTUS supersedes the constitution at worst.
    - Wolfenstein98k 3y ago
      Only if you presuppose that the agency is always right. Agencies are often wrong and sometimes very seriously so. The FDA trying to take over regulation of tests is another example. There is a perfectly legitimate view that Chevron deference is - at least in some circumstances - not indefeasible.
noobermin 3y ago
This is great that this is line of comments are under an article about banning something most people here would like to see banned. That is in fact doing something good, unless I guess you're on the side of robocalls. Perhaps choose to make this argument in another thread, it'd be far more convincing.
- b112 3y ago
  The argument espoused should be examined more directly for things you agree with, otherwise one risks becoming a hypocrite.

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.

dantheman 3y ago
Imagine the FCC goes to congress, proposes a new rule and then congresses passes it. Then there is debate and congress can't abdicate its responsibility.
- windthrown 3y ago
  In theory sure but have you been following Congress for the past decade? They can't even come to terms on continuing resolution funding bills, let alone pass complex rules related to new contentious technologies. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist but is something that makes you think this might drastically change?
  - Kamq 3y ago
    > In theory sure but have you been following Congress for the past decade? On one hand, fair. On the other hand, you can only coast along on the old post-cold war bi-partisan consensus for so long without getting new consensus before institutions lose their legitimacy (you can already see this happening a bit). We can default back to the last time we had consensus for some things, for some time, but you do need to get it again before big changes happen. If you get to the point where the last time we had consensus is before the majority of the people in the system were alive, you either need to hard pivot your society to focus on ancestor worship, or you need to focus on something you do have consensus on.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      The problem is that the previous consensus was created by corporate centralized media, and in many ways was actually against the interests of most people who accepted it. Now that corporate consensus has fallen apart, so we've got two tribes each focused on the specific ways they were screwed over, with each ascribing the previous state of affairs to the other tribe. In a vacuum their differences could certainly be worked out to support a consensus. But given how well ragebait sensationalism seems to work, and the popularity of feel-good (well, feel-something at least) authoritarian demagogues like Trump, I don't see much hope.

rpmisms 3y ago

Chevron deference would come into play if the FCC tried to say that a test-tube baby was an artificial agent. I support ending the doctrine, because the shadow laws are strong and bad.

dclowd9901 3y ago
How would it? The FCC aren’t experts on the philosophical or scientific difference between artificial and natural insemination.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Under the current interpretation, that would be in their jurisdiction. This is why Chevron deference is dumb.
  - nielsbot 3y ago
    that’s ridiculous
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      I agree. Chevron deference has (indirectly) led to a shoelace being confiscated by the ATF as a machine gun.
      - jakogut 3y ago
        Don't forget about Matt Hoover of CRS Firearms being charged for conspiracy to transfer unregistered machine gun conversion devices. His crime? Advertising a trinket known as an "Auto Key Card", a metal business card etched with the outline of a lightning link, a device that--properly manufactured--can make a semi-automatic rifle full-auto. The problem is that this device was nothing more than a drawing on a business card sized piece of steel. It amounts to an egregious first amendment violation at the very least. https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/federal-jury-convicts-two-men-conspiring-transfer-unregistered-machinegun-conversion https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/federal-jury-convicts-t... https://www.pewpewtactical.com/autokeycard-explained/ https://www.pewpewtactical.com/autokeycard-explained/

hedora 3y ago

The problem with your argument is that, for decades, congress has been passing and failing to update laws under the understanding that the courts would apply Chevron deference. If the courts decide to get rid of that, they're intentionally misinterpreting the laws that congress has passed over that time. They're also effectively rewriting a large fraction of US law, despite the fact that the constitution is carefully designed to prevent such a small group of (unelected or elected) people from modifying US law that quickly, and without safe guards. The current Supreme Court has repeatedly undermined separation of powers, and they're explicitly doing so against the wishes of the electorate. Their behavior is fundamentally undemocratic.

jakogut 3y ago
> Their behavior is fundamentally undemocratic. Correct, because in the United States, our model of government is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. For all of the flaws of our system of law, the Constitution is considered supreme, and any laws that violate the Constitution are to be considered null and void. The job of the Supreme Court is to decide the Constitutionality of laws. One interpretation of removing Chevron deference is that it's defacto rewriting law, another is that executive agencies have been doing this for decades already. The truth is probably some mix of the two.
- noobermin 3y ago
  >Constitution is considered supreme, and any laws that violate the Constitution are to be considered null and void. The job of the Supreme Court is to decide the Constitutionality of laws. A plain and non-ideological reading of what you typed is that this is a contradiction at best and saying the SCOTUS supersedes the constitution at worst.
  - Wolfenstein98k 3y ago
    Only if you presuppose that the agency is always right. Agencies are often wrong and sometimes very seriously so. The FDA trying to take over regulation of tests is another example. There is a perfectly legitimate view that Chevron deference is - at least in some circumstances - not indefeasible.

noobermin 3y ago

This is great that this is line of comments are under an article about banning something most people here would like to see banned. That is in fact doing something good, unless I guess you're on the side of robocalls. Perhaps choose to make this argument in another thread, it'd be far more convincing.

b112 3y ago
The argument espoused should be examined more directly for things you agree with, otherwise one risks becoming a hypocrite.