this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
712 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
80795 readers
3580 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can someone explain how this makes any sense? They were ordered legally to deactivate and remove, unilaterally decide to put them back up and reactivate, the authorities (whomever those are) resort to covering them instead of removing and destroying them because "removing them is illegal"?
What the actual fuck is this?
My guess (emphasis "guess") is either some contractual bullshit or a result of state law superseding local law.
This is why when my city installed them (with a 3-2 vote from Council) they required them to all be installed in the Right-of-Way, which gives the city more authority to remove them if the contract is terminated (which it likely will be soon).