The Onion buys Infowars(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Onion buys Infowars
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/business/media/alex-jones-infowars-the-onion.html
1,292 comments
Wonderful news. I'm glad their CEO recognizes the great value of CEOs. My only worry is that this acquisition makes Global Tetraeder so large that it attracts the attention of those pesky EU bureaucrats, who will want to split it up into multiple imperfect solids.
They'd better think twice as long as Ted Kaczynski remains on The Onions editorial board[1], he also knows a few things about splitting things into multiple solids.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/iNDpZt2.png
[1] https://i.imgur.com/iNDpZt2.png
Didn't he die in jail last year?
I rather suspect that won't matter to The Onion.
I'm sure Zombie Kaczynski will have cogent contributions to make still.
My next low budget horror film is going to be Zombie Kaczynski
I’ll be sure to wait for the RedLetterMedia’s Half in the Bag review on it.
Unless you’re going to go for Best of the Worst. Then I might actually watch the movie itself too.
Unless you’re going to go for Best of the Worst. Then I might actually watch the movie itself too.
"The Unazombie"
Dead Kaczynski
Unazomber, maybe?
Brilliant plus bonus: your spelling was Unabomber-correct
Suh-weet!
Positive ones, even!
If T. Herman Zweibel didn't let corporeal death force him out of the Onion, why should Kaczynski?
That's what they want us to think... Is what I'm pretty sure InfoWars would tell me.
[deleted]
I mean would the Onion lie to us
I will try to explain this guy to my son as a "basically a militant Amish guy"
If Brexit taught me anything it was that the correct phrase is pesky unelected EU bureaucrats!
Now if we want to get into dirty details, no bureaucrat is ever elected. You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with. Or is this in the UK different?
> You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with.
This is not always the case, although I guess it depends how you define bureaucrats. As an example, in France, most of the administration is not nominated. You become a public worker through exam, and the representative usually have no power over your nomination, raises, etc. It does make sense in a lot of cases. For example, in a city, only the mayor and its advisers are elected, and they do not have any control over the administration of the city. But the administration cannot refuse to work with a specific mayor. If they do, they would need to be moved elsewhere, or simply be fired for not doing their job. On the other hand, they are also bound by the law, so they also act as a counter power to crazy mayor who wants to do illegal stuff. Meaning, if the mayor ask the administration to do something illegal, they can absolutely say no with no fear of repercussion for their job.
It also makes sense for other counter-power office, where having the currently elected representatives being able to choose who control the office would go against its whole purpose.
This is not always the case, although I guess it depends how you define bureaucrats. As an example, in France, most of the administration is not nominated. You become a public worker through exam, and the representative usually have no power over your nomination, raises, etc. It does make sense in a lot of cases. For example, in a city, only the mayor and its advisers are elected, and they do not have any control over the administration of the city. But the administration cannot refuse to work with a specific mayor. If they do, they would need to be moved elsewhere, or simply be fired for not doing their job. On the other hand, they are also bound by the law, so they also act as a counter power to crazy mayor who wants to do illegal stuff. Meaning, if the mayor ask the administration to do something illegal, they can absolutely say no with no fear of repercussion for their job.
It also makes sense for other counter-power office, where having the currently elected representatives being able to choose who control the office would go against its whole purpose.
Meanwile, Macron chooses to ignore a left victory, then refuses to accept their prime minister and instead co-opts the election to instant the same center-right government that was broken up a few months prior. :+)
Now, to be fair that is partly the result of the left-wing coalition imploding (as usual… sigh) and being generally unwilling to compromise. It turns out that when you don’t have a majority, being the biggest party does not matter that much if you are unpleasant enough to make the other parties rally against you. Yes, I am bitter.
If you can find a copy of the game Koalition ( https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/303/koalition ) it has some of the fun of European politics in it.
> 60 politicians of all colors stand for election in the 15 countries of the European Union: unimaginable benefits and positions of influence await their power brokers, for it is these Machiavellian lobbyists and self-appointed “leaders“ who hold the real power in the palms of their hands.
And from the rules:
> The player with the most total votes played in a given party is the party representative. If a player has two cards in the same party, their value is added. If two or more players have the same vote total in a party, the one with the highest single card is the party representative. Remember that a doubler card, if played, will always be considered the highest card. Also, note that it is possible for one player to control two parties.
> If Gaudino is played in a party in competition with another politician valued 7 in that party, he is considered to be the higher card.
> The green-leaf party is a special case. If two players tie for total value in green cards, it is possible that they will still tie for highest single card value. In that case, the two players are given thirty seconds to agree on who will be the green representative. If they do not agree in that time, each player with green cards may negotiate separately.
> 60 politicians of all colors stand for election in the 15 countries of the European Union: unimaginable benefits and positions of influence await their power brokers, for it is these Machiavellian lobbyists and self-appointed “leaders“ who hold the real power in the palms of their hands.
And from the rules:
> The player with the most total votes played in a given party is the party representative. If a player has two cards in the same party, their value is added. If two or more players have the same vote total in a party, the one with the highest single card is the party representative. Remember that a doubler card, if played, will always be considered the highest card. Also, note that it is possible for one player to control two parties.
> If Gaudino is played in a party in competition with another politician valued 7 in that party, he is considered to be the higher card.
> The green-leaf party is a special case. If two players tie for total value in green cards, it is possible that they will still tie for highest single card value. In that case, the two players are given thirty seconds to agree on who will be the green representative. If they do not agree in that time, each player with green cards may negotiate separately.
But.. they did not implode? They put forward a reasonable candidate that they all agreed on. Macron then refused that candidate and made clear he wouldn’t verify any PM that wasn’t center-right. He stole the election, plain and simple.
They did not “all agree on”. There was strong arming on one end because Méluche (and others, but he’s particularly hard to ignore and influential) cannot imagine compromising. Demanding submission was stupid because, again, having a couple of percents more than the others is not very useful if you don’t have a majority. And had they a majority, there would be nothing that Macron could do because they would just vote no confidence into any government coming before them. He is boisterous, vindictive, loud, and has been turning victories into defeats for more than a decade now. Macron is the opposite: not that showy, quieter, but ruthless and shrewd, and kept control despite setbacks. I don’t like neoliberals or conservatives (least of all that Barnier guy, I remember him from before he played as the EU’s saviour and he is not a nice person). But they were simply better at politics. They did not steal anything, they got a majority coalition, rickety as it is (and who knows how long it will last).
As long as we (and I mean the left side broadly) are talking about the government not being legitimate as we shoot ourselves in the foot, we won’t learn how to reverse this. Talking about stolen power is a weak argument when we’ve just been outmanoeuvred. And it makes us look like sulking children and in the end it just helps conservatives and fascists.
As long as we (and I mean the left side broadly) are talking about the government not being legitimate as we shoot ourselves in the foot, we won’t learn how to reverse this. Talking about stolen power is a weak argument when we’ve just been outmanoeuvred. And it makes us look like sulking children and in the end it just helps conservatives and fascists.
> I guess it depends how you define bureaucrats.
“If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, [those who work at public bureaus] have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us."
“If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, [those who work at public bureaus] have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us."
> You become a public worker through exam, and the representative usually have no power over your nomination, raises, etc.
Who else would have power over "nomination, raises etc" of anyone, if not elected representatives? Other public workers? At this point would they not be a sovereign group distinct from France, untouchable by the french people?
I guess the elected representatives have indirect power over everything in the end, if France is still a democracy. May be lots of layers of indirection, like the need to pass or change a law, but still.
Who defines and administers the exam you mentioned? Other public representatives? Can they decide to pass their relatives?
Who else would have power over "nomination, raises etc" of anyone, if not elected representatives? Other public workers? At this point would they not be a sovereign group distinct from France, untouchable by the french people?
I guess the elected representatives have indirect power over everything in the end, if France is still a democracy. May be lots of layers of indirection, like the need to pass or change a law, but still.
Who defines and administers the exam you mentioned? Other public representatives? Can they decide to pass their relatives?
> Who else would have power over "nomination, raises etc" of anyone, if not elected representatives? Other public workers?
Yes, that's how the civil service works in most countries, more or less. The US is an outlier in that the executive appoints about 4,000 civil servants; most places don't work like that (even in the US; _most_ civil servants (about 2.8 million of them, federal) are hired, promoted, disciplined etc by other civil servants; the president doesn't sit in on every interview or anything.)
> I guess the elected representatives have indirect power over everything in the end, if France is still a democracy.
The elected representatives pass laws. The civil service implements them.
Separately, at least in many countries, not sure about France, you have the concept of power devolved to the minister, where the legislature passes a law allowing the minister to make orders in certain restricted areas, a bit like a scope-limited version of US presidential executive orders.
This occasionally has amusing repercussions if the original devolution legislation was insufficient or unconstitutional; for instance in Ireland nearly all drugs (morphine, heroin, cannabis and possibly cocaine remained illegal) were accidentally legalised for a day, when the supreme count found that the legislation used to enable the Minister for Justice to ban drugs was insufficient, thus legalising everything which had been banned since it was passed.
Yes, that's how the civil service works in most countries, more or less. The US is an outlier in that the executive appoints about 4,000 civil servants; most places don't work like that (even in the US; _most_ civil servants (about 2.8 million of them, federal) are hired, promoted, disciplined etc by other civil servants; the president doesn't sit in on every interview or anything.)
> I guess the elected representatives have indirect power over everything in the end, if France is still a democracy.
The elected representatives pass laws. The civil service implements them.
Separately, at least in many countries, not sure about France, you have the concept of power devolved to the minister, where the legislature passes a law allowing the minister to make orders in certain restricted areas, a bit like a scope-limited version of US presidential executive orders.
This occasionally has amusing repercussions if the original devolution legislation was insufficient or unconstitutional; for instance in Ireland nearly all drugs (morphine, heroin, cannabis and possibly cocaine remained illegal) were accidentally legalised for a day, when the supreme count found that the legislation used to enable the Minister for Justice to ban drugs was insufficient, thus legalising everything which had been banned since it was passed.
> The US is an outlier in that the executive appoints about 4,000 civil servants; most places don't work like that (even in the US; _most_ civil servants (about 2.8 million of them, federal) are hired, promoted, disciplined etc by other civil servants; the president doesn't sit in on every interview or anything.)
This is one of the concerning parts with the incoming administration.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/25/project-2025...
> Project 2025, which is backed by the rightwing Heritage Foundation thinktank, has proposed to “dismantle the administrative state”, while Trump’s official “Agenda 47” calls for “cleaning out the Deep State” and “on Day One” issuing an “executive order restoring the president’s authority to fire rogue bureaucrats”.
> That executive order would set up a system, known as Schedule F, that would revamp the federal bureaucracy so that far more jobs could be filled with political appointees rather than through traditional merit rules. Trump’s supporters say Schedule F would cover about 50,000 federal employees, but unions representing federal workers say it would cover many times that. Currently, approximately 4,000 federal positions are subject to presidential appointment. Trump’s allies are said to have compiled a list of 20,000 loyalists who could quickly move into federal jobs in a new Trump administration.
---
That 4,000 is looking to become 20,000 and potentially increase up to 50,000 (and beyond depending how far reaching the reclassification is).
This is one of the concerning parts with the incoming administration.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/25/project-2025...
> Project 2025, which is backed by the rightwing Heritage Foundation thinktank, has proposed to “dismantle the administrative state”, while Trump’s official “Agenda 47” calls for “cleaning out the Deep State” and “on Day One” issuing an “executive order restoring the president’s authority to fire rogue bureaucrats”.
> That executive order would set up a system, known as Schedule F, that would revamp the federal bureaucracy so that far more jobs could be filled with political appointees rather than through traditional merit rules. Trump’s supporters say Schedule F would cover about 50,000 federal employees, but unions representing federal workers say it would cover many times that. Currently, approximately 4,000 federal positions are subject to presidential appointment. Trump’s allies are said to have compiled a list of 20,000 loyalists who could quickly move into federal jobs in a new Trump administration.
---
That 4,000 is looking to become 20,000 and potentially increase up to 50,000 (and beyond depending how far reaching the reclassification is).
I suspect the coming administration would find a way to do the same thing even if it was in Germany or France. I suspect if the extreme right parties there ever win, they will find a way to achieve this too.
Best to be aware of this, not deceive ourselves that public servants are untouchable. Some people might get the idea that voting for a very bad politician would just send a message and not have much real effect, as the civil servants are the same and will do the same job and cannot be removed. They can. Even in Germany.
Best to be aware of this, not deceive ourselves that public servants are untouchable. Some people might get the idea that voting for a very bad politician would just send a message and not have much real effect, as the civil servants are the same and will do the same job and cannot be removed. They can. Even in Germany.
> I suspect the coming administration would find a way to do the same thing even if it was in Germany or France. I suspect if the extreme right parties there ever win, they will find a way to achieve this too.
Possibly. They’d need majority control of the legislature (not merely the sort of plurality control that seems within the bounds of possibility on some countries) and control of the courts. They’d also potentially need to be able to change the constitution; in most countries the Lisbon treaty is either implicitly or explicitly above local law. They’d need to be ready to face sanctions from the EU. I think Germany in particular also has some regulation of the civil service actually in the constitution. But ultimately, yeah, if the far right successfully took over the government (rather than just leading a coalition or something) they could probably do this; the Nazis did, after all.
Possibly. They’d need majority control of the legislature (not merely the sort of plurality control that seems within the bounds of possibility on some countries) and control of the courts. They’d also potentially need to be able to change the constitution; in most countries the Lisbon treaty is either implicitly or explicitly above local law. They’d need to be ready to face sanctions from the EU. I think Germany in particular also has some regulation of the civil service actually in the constitution. But ultimately, yeah, if the far right successfully took over the government (rather than just leading a coalition or something) they could probably do this; the Nazis did, after all.
Majority control of the legislature is what I'm talking about. In Germany and France that's how a party comes to power, not through presidential elections. There is no such thing in Germany, though in France it is naturally more complicated :) Even there, Macron still has power only because parties are somewhat tied. If there was a clear winner, he would have no choice but to give them control.
The courts? If you have majority in the legislature, you can pass any law you want, and the courts are obligated to follow the law. You think they would just rebel and disregard laws that they consider not-ok?
In any case. The courts need to get paid, and need offices and electricity and computers and support from police and other branches. And judges need to be appointed, and sometimes leave. One way or another the courts would get converted to the cause. All the courts in a country are a lot of people. There are always some who would betray. Just adjust the laws and the salaries and everything you can (which is a lot if you own the legislative) to advantage those on your side and disadvantage those who oppose you. Prosecutors are typically under the executive, so start some made-up investigations against the most prominent judges that oppose you. No need to do it for all, set a few examples and the others will see the error of their ways. No need for the investigations to get convictions in court. Just place doubt on inconvenient judges, and use the media to amplify it. Your side of the media, while the other side also gets converted. Converting the media is much easier, again, using executive and legislative power.
The constitution as a document is irrelevant. The court(s) that interpret it would just get converted to the cause in the same way. This has already been done in Poland and the US, and I presume in Hungary, since there's no news about them creating trouble.
> in most countries the Lisbon treaty is either implicitly or explicitly above local law
The government and the converted courts will just start acting as if the Lisbon treaty does not exist. Who or what can enforce it? Look at Hungary. Look at Poland before the recent change. Look at Slovakia. A treaty has no power over a country that does not whish to follow it. Look at the Budapest memorandum and soon enough we will see Trump ignore the NATO treaty.
In my country the constitutional court routinely says our constitution (and therefore their decisions, which always favor a certain party, and corruption in general) are above the Lisbon treaty. The EU pretends nothing happened (presumably due to the war).
> the Nazis did, after all
Exactly.
The courts? If you have majority in the legislature, you can pass any law you want, and the courts are obligated to follow the law. You think they would just rebel and disregard laws that they consider not-ok?
In any case. The courts need to get paid, and need offices and electricity and computers and support from police and other branches. And judges need to be appointed, and sometimes leave. One way or another the courts would get converted to the cause. All the courts in a country are a lot of people. There are always some who would betray. Just adjust the laws and the salaries and everything you can (which is a lot if you own the legislative) to advantage those on your side and disadvantage those who oppose you. Prosecutors are typically under the executive, so start some made-up investigations against the most prominent judges that oppose you. No need to do it for all, set a few examples and the others will see the error of their ways. No need for the investigations to get convictions in court. Just place doubt on inconvenient judges, and use the media to amplify it. Your side of the media, while the other side also gets converted. Converting the media is much easier, again, using executive and legislative power.
The constitution as a document is irrelevant. The court(s) that interpret it would just get converted to the cause in the same way. This has already been done in Poland and the US, and I presume in Hungary, since there's no news about them creating trouble.
> in most countries the Lisbon treaty is either implicitly or explicitly above local law
The government and the converted courts will just start acting as if the Lisbon treaty does not exist. Who or what can enforce it? Look at Hungary. Look at Poland before the recent change. Look at Slovakia. A treaty has no power over a country that does not whish to follow it. Look at the Budapest memorandum and soon enough we will see Trump ignore the NATO treaty.
In my country the constitutional court routinely says our constitution (and therefore their decisions, which always favor a certain party, and corruption in general) are above the Lisbon treaty. The EU pretends nothing happened (presumably due to the war).
> the Nazis did, after all
Exactly.
The concerning thing is, if he's actually just there to bust the joint out and crash everything, it's a moot point whether it's 4000 or 20000 people, whether they're competent or useless, or anything.
In some circumstances, the plan would be to fire everybody and then just sit there and do nothing (except fire more people). The idea that all this is towards any kind of functional system, is an assumption. They could be looking to dismantle the entire administrative state and just collapse immediately to feudalism.
In some circumstances, the plan would be to fire everybody and then just sit there and do nothing (except fire more people). The idea that all this is towards any kind of functional system, is an assumption. They could be looking to dismantle the entire administrative state and just collapse immediately to feudalism.
> Who else would have power over "nomination, raises etc" of anyone, if not elected representatives?
In many countries that is done based on laws describing career progression process.
In Germany most administration workers are "career" folks, who study at the university of administration and then have a career paths, where levels at are relatively clearly described. Only heads of different authorities are "political" positions, which are nominated by ministers and can be fired/retired relatively easily but even those in most cases stay across administrations. Only ministers and their direct staff change.
In some ministries there sometimes is the saying "we don't care who is minoster below us" but if a some minister with an agenda is appointed they still can be very effective.
In many countries that is done based on laws describing career progression process.
In Germany most administration workers are "career" folks, who study at the university of administration and then have a career paths, where levels at are relatively clearly described. Only heads of different authorities are "political" positions, which are nominated by ministers and can be fired/retired relatively easily but even those in most cases stay across administrations. Only ministers and their direct staff change.
In some ministries there sometimes is the saying "we don't care who is minoster below us" but if a some minister with an agenda is appointed they still can be very effective.
Seems like a pretty good system. Or who knows.
But since the law is written by elected representatives, to say that the representatives have no power in this case seems wrong, to me. That's all.
If the voters will vote for the "fire Joe" party 20 years in a row, I guarantee Joe the civil servant will eventually be fired, even in Germany, France, anywhere. Well, maybe not in China, but that's different. Anywhere where votes still matter. Solutions would be found, laws changed, exceptions provided, and so on.
But since the law is written by elected representatives, to say that the representatives have no power in this case seems wrong, to me. That's all.
If the voters will vote for the "fire Joe" party 20 years in a row, I guarantee Joe the civil servant will eventually be fired, even in Germany, France, anywhere. Well, maybe not in China, but that's different. Anywhere where votes still matter. Solutions would be found, laws changed, exceptions provided, and so on.
But now we’re in reducto ad absurdum territory because elected officials can pass laws to force private companies to fire specific employees, too. And before you say “constitution,” that can also be amended.
I have no clue what your point is. Reductio ad absurdum is a useful argument, not a logical fallacy.
> And before you say “constitution,”
I have zero idea why I would say "constitution" or anything really. My entire point is that nobody is beyond the reach of elected representatives, and that is by design and a good thing too.
> And before you say “constitution,”
I have zero idea why I would say "constitution" or anything really. My entire point is that nobody is beyond the reach of elected representatives, and that is by design and a good thing too.
> My entire point is that nobody is beyond the reach of elected representatives
That’s just stating the obvious.
> that is by design
No, it’s not. It’s just a fact of life that governments can control every aspect of a person’s life if it chooses. It’s always been this way and always will be.
This is why your statements are absurd.
When people refer to a civil service as being “apolitical” or “not politically appointed,” it’s obvious that they’re not referring to absurd cases like “a government can outlaw them from having a job.”
That’s why I said you’re reducing the argument to absurdity.
That’s just stating the obvious.
> that is by design
No, it’s not. It’s just a fact of life that governments can control every aspect of a person’s life if it chooses. It’s always been this way and always will be.
This is why your statements are absurd.
When people refer to a civil service as being “apolitical” or “not politically appointed,” it’s obvious that they’re not referring to absurd cases like “a government can outlaw them from having a job.”
That’s why I said you’re reducing the argument to absurdity.
Civil servants are a-political so why would you need to fire them? A civil servant carries out whatever law is enacted by the government.
The bureaucracy is a tool and tools don't have a will.
> Civil servants are a-political so why would you need to fire them?
Have you watched the British documentary series "Yes, Minister"?
Have you watched the British documentary series "Yes, Minister"?
> The bureaucracy is a tool and tools don't have a will.
As if it's not made of humans. This view is in grave error. Nobody is perfectly rational, nobody is beyond bias or subjectivty, nobody is beyond human emotions.
As if it's not made of humans. This view is in grave error. Nobody is perfectly rational, nobody is beyond bias or subjectivty, nobody is beyond human emotions.
One reason is scapegoating. If a politician fucks up they can shift the blame to civil servants. Another reason is conflicts. Politician proposes a law and the head of the affected department says that the law will lead to major loss of tax revenue.
I don’t think this is strictly true. There are documented cases where, for better or worse, apolitical civil servants undermined politicians. Rory Stewart’s book has some great examples.
This ignores the self-interest of civil servants, which they most definitely have and is the basis for public choice theory.
Building upon economic theory, public choice has a few core tenets. One is that no decision is made by an aggregate whole. Rather, decisions are made by combined individual choices. A second is the use of markets in the political system. A third is the self-interested nature of everyone in a political system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
Building upon economic theory, public choice has a few core tenets. One is that no decision is made by an aggregate whole. Rather, decisions are made by combined individual choices. A second is the use of markets in the political system. A third is the self-interested nature of everyone in a political system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
> Civil servants are a-political
For certain classes of politician, this might actually be a problem.
For certain classes of politician, this might actually be a problem.
Like any other worker, they should be fired when they don't do their job well enough.
Civil servants are people like you and me, and have as strong will as anyone.
Civil servants are people like you and me, and have as strong will as anyone.
There are two factors: One is that the Constitution disallows laws for a special case. Thus a "fire joe law" may not exist (without Change to constitution)
However: Yes, who you vote for impacts government. If you vote for a party which sets priority in building bike sheds, the authorities will move staff to the required departments, while Joe remains in the department nobody cares about anymore and thus can't meet the promotion goals. (While he will still receive the regular raise for the job level he is in) And if one truly wants to get rid of Joe there certainly is a way to find a reason for demoting him ..
But it's way different from the American system which sweeps thousand of jobs, according to [1] about 4,000 jobs directly, where then many of those bring in their assistant, advisor etc.
[1] https://presidentialtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
However: Yes, who you vote for impacts government. If you vote for a party which sets priority in building bike sheds, the authorities will move staff to the required departments, while Joe remains in the department nobody cares about anymore and thus can't meet the promotion goals. (While he will still receive the regular raise for the job level he is in) And if one truly wants to get rid of Joe there certainly is a way to find a reason for demoting him ..
But it's way different from the American system which sweeps thousand of jobs, according to [1] about 4,000 jobs directly, where then many of those bring in their assistant, advisor etc.
[1] https://presidentialtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
Yeah, I get it's different. Not saying it's the same. Just don't give me the absolute "civil servants are untouchable by politicians". It would be bad if they really were untouchable.
I never stated that. But there is a notable cultural difference between Europe and US.
This goes also further: Many offices which are elected in the US are appointed in Europe (I'm not aware of a European country where population elects state/district attorneys, sheriffs, judges, school boards, etc)
This goes also further: Many offices which are elected in the US are appointed in Europe (I'm not aware of a European country where population elects state/district attorneys, sheriffs, judges, school boards, etc)
You are not wrong. Exam, raises, lateral and vertical move are decided (in most case) by:
1. The law. For example, public worker salary's are explicitly defined on a public grid, which depends on several factor (exact position, how long you have been in the job, the national public worker salary index, ...).
2. Their boss / future boss. Promotion it partly a matter of law, but also partly at the discretion of your boss. Same for a lateral move. If a position open, and you are qualified to fill it, you have to have interview just like a normal job offer.
There is a bunch a caveat and details, but that's the gist of it. So, technically, representative do have power over this. Some representatives can change the law, and some are technically more or less the boss of the top officer at some administration. But it still make a lot of things difficult if not impossible. A mayor cannot change national law, only Deputé of the national assembly can, so he has no power over the salary of his administration. He also has no power to fire someone from the local administration unless he can prove that they did something that the law consider a fireable offense. The same would go for a minister.
Of course, in effect, they do yield a lot of influence. While public worker are very, very rarely fired, they can be moved to another position, which is easier to do and what usually happen when someone powerful want them gone without having the actual power to do so directly.
1. The law. For example, public worker salary's are explicitly defined on a public grid, which depends on several factor (exact position, how long you have been in the job, the national public worker salary index, ...).
2. Their boss / future boss. Promotion it partly a matter of law, but also partly at the discretion of your boss. Same for a lateral move. If a position open, and you are qualified to fill it, you have to have interview just like a normal job offer.
There is a bunch a caveat and details, but that's the gist of it. So, technically, representative do have power over this. Some representatives can change the law, and some are technically more or less the boss of the top officer at some administration. But it still make a lot of things difficult if not impossible. A mayor cannot change national law, only Deputé of the national assembly can, so he has no power over the salary of his administration. He also has no power to fire someone from the local administration unless he can prove that they did something that the law consider a fireable offense. The same would go for a minister.
Of course, in effect, they do yield a lot of influence. While public worker are very, very rarely fired, they can be moved to another position, which is easier to do and what usually happen when someone powerful want them gone without having the actual power to do so directly.
> I guess the elected representatives have indirect power over everything in the end, if France is still a democracy. May be lots of layers of indirection, like the need to pass or change a law, but still.
Yes, in the end of course. But these layers of indirection are extremely important. In my country right-wing politicians are currently rallying against prosecutors they think are "too lenient" with criminals. If it weren't for the indirection those prosecutors would have been replaced with the politicians' yes-friends long ago.
Yes, in the end of course. But these layers of indirection are extremely important. In my country right-wing politicians are currently rallying against prosecutors they think are "too lenient" with criminals. If it weren't for the indirection those prosecutors would have been replaced with the politicians' yes-friends long ago.
> For example, in a city, only the mayor and its advisers are elected, and they do not have any control over the administration of the city. But the administration cannot refuse to work with a specific mayor.
The mayor can still dictate policy and the administration have to implement it if it is not illegal, right?
The mayor can still dictate policy and the administration have to implement it if it is not illegal, right?
You almost managed to show or administration as a competent, hard working group that has the interests of the population in mind.
The above is of course satire. We have idiotic regulations that require a good understanding of culture to get through. People are like the rest of the population: average. There are good ones send bad ones.
For the exam - it completely depends on the administration and your level.
We hate our administration because it is either complicated, or contacting them is a nightmare (or simply impossible)
The above is of course satire. We have idiotic regulations that require a good understanding of culture to get through. People are like the rest of the population: average. There are good ones send bad ones.
For the exam - it completely depends on the administration and your level.
We hate our administration because it is either complicated, or contacting them is a nightmare (or simply impossible)
Yes, but that is not the point. The point is it was a favorite attack point used by Brexit supporters. A whole lot of the accusations against the EU applied just as much - sometimes much more - to the UK itself.
We have people who frothed at the mouth over the role played by unelected bureaucrats now frothing at the mouth at proposals to remove the last hereditary Lords from our legislature...
(in fairness, those people tend to hate the Civil Service in the UK too. And they're elected hereditary Lords, albeit via a franchise consisting entirely of other hereditary Lords)
(in fairness, those people tend to hate the Civil Service in the UK too. And they're elected hereditary Lords, albeit via a franchise consisting entirely of other hereditary Lords)
> We have people who frothed at the mouth over the role played by unelected bureaucrats now frothing at the mouth at proposals to remove the last hereditary Lords from our legislature...
I do not think they are the same people. The majority of votes were to leave the EU, the majority of people want to get rid of hereditary peerages.
> And they're elected hereditary Lords, albeit via a franchise consisting entirely of other hereditary Lords
The appointment is formally made by the monarch, in practice by the Prime Minister, with some recommendations coming from a commission that is not part of the house of lords.
I do not think they are the same people. The majority of votes were to leave the EU, the majority of people want to get rid of hereditary peerages.
> And they're elected hereditary Lords, albeit via a franchise consisting entirely of other hereditary Lords
The appointment is formally made by the monarch, in practice by the Prime Minister, with some recommendations coming from a commission that is not part of the house of lords.
> I do not think they are the same people.
You obviously haven't read the Telegraph or listened to many Conservative MPs recently. I don't blame you tbf!
> The appointment is formally made by the monarch, in practice by the Prime Minister, with some recommendations coming from a commission that is not part of the house of lords.
Those are life peers. Hereditary peers are, as the name suggests, people who get their access to the House of Lords by accident of birth rather than Prime Minister. But since Blair cut a deal to get rid of all but 92 of them, they have elected the 92, from a franchise consisting exclusively of people who had hereditary titles that had previously entitled them to a seat.
You obviously haven't read the Telegraph or listened to many Conservative MPs recently. I don't blame you tbf!
> The appointment is formally made by the monarch, in practice by the Prime Minister, with some recommendations coming from a commission that is not part of the house of lords.
Those are life peers. Hereditary peers are, as the name suggests, people who get their access to the House of Lords by accident of birth rather than Prime Minister. But since Blair cut a deal to get rid of all but 92 of them, they have elected the 92, from a franchise consisting exclusively of people who had hereditary titles that had previously entitled them to a seat.
How few people need to vote to appoint someone before they're considered "unelected'"? The 805 Lords? The 538 of the US electoral college? The 121 Cardinals of the Conclave? The 101 of the American Senate? The 27 EU Commissioners?
Too many layers of indirection?
An indirect democracy is you voting for a representative who votes for policies.
The EU is a doubly-indirect democracy: you vote for local politicians who appoint commissioners who vote for policies. Each layer of indirection adds a new way for popular policies to be subverted. Hell, even in the US, the single layer of indirection is already sufficient to kill things like right to repair.
An indirect democracy is you voting for a representative who votes for policies.
The EU is a doubly-indirect democracy: you vote for local politicians who appoint commissioners who vote for policies. Each layer of indirection adds a new way for popular policies to be subverted. Hell, even in the US, the single layer of indirection is already sufficient to kill things like right to repair.
> The EU is a doubly-indirect democracy: you vote for local politicians who appoint commissioners who vote for policies.
The EU Commission is the executive, not legislative branch. Though it does hold the initiative to create proposals, they have to be approved by the Council, which is where the real power lies. The Council consists of members of national governments. Also there is a directly elected, but much less powerful, European Parliament, that has to approve the legislative too.
The EU Commission is the executive, not legislative branch. Though it does hold the initiative to create proposals, they have to be approved by the Council, which is where the real power lies. The Council consists of members of national governments. Also there is a directly elected, but much less powerful, European Parliament, that has to approve the legislative too.
Indeed. That pattern was obvious even before the referendum. The UK is know for its strong civil servant body that can keep the ship afloat when the old chaps in the government have no clue which way is up. And its first past the post system. It is admirable on a lot of levels but certainly not any more democratic than the EU.
This!
> Or is this in the UK different?
A bit; mostly as you say, but also it's a kingdom and has the House of Lords whose seats are partially heritable, partially religious appointments from the state religion with the monarch at the top, in addition to those appointed by the elected government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal
A bit; mostly as you say, but also it's a kingdom and has the House of Lords whose seats are partially heritable, partially religious appointments from the state religion with the monarch at the top, in addition to those appointed by the elected government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal
> partially religious appointments from the state religion
There are also, in practice, a number of other religious appointments made to provide other religious groups with representation.
> in addition to those appointed by the elected government.
Those are the most problematic IMO. Businesspeople (because the rich do not have enough influence on politics and cannot get their voice heard?), and former politicians.
I think how it works is nicely summarised by the fact that at least one of the founders of an ecommerce website (lastminute.com) is a peer but no-one like (for example) Tim Berners-Lee is.
There are also, in practice, a number of other religious appointments made to provide other religious groups with representation.
> in addition to those appointed by the elected government.
Those are the most problematic IMO. Businesspeople (because the rich do not have enough influence on politics and cannot get their voice heard?), and former politicians.
I think how it works is nicely summarised by the fact that at least one of the founders of an ecommerce website (lastminute.com) is a peer but no-one like (for example) Tim Berners-Lee is.
> no-one like (for example) Tim Berners-Lee is.
Alexandra Freeman [0] or Lionel Tarassenko [1] might fit your criteria as technocratic appointments to the peerage - just how "like" TBL do they have to be? Sir Timothy seems like the kind of character who could reasonably be appointed, too, if that's what he really wanted.
I agree with your point that it's dominated by businessmen and aristocrats, but maybe not quite as badly as you think.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Freeman,_Baroness_Fr...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Tarassenko
Alexandra Freeman [0] or Lionel Tarassenko [1] might fit your criteria as technocratic appointments to the peerage - just how "like" TBL do they have to be? Sir Timothy seems like the kind of character who could reasonably be appointed, too, if that's what he really wanted.
I agree with your point that it's dominated by businessmen and aristocrats, but maybe not quite as badly as you think.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Freeman,_Baroness_Fr...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Tarassenko
Tarassenko does.
Freeman, has spent most of her career as a science in science communication (director and producer of BBC documentaries, then a "communications" role at Cambridge).
I like TBL as an example partly because of his interest in the broader consequences of technology, and the contrast with people who have made money from the technology her inventented being peers.
Freeman, has spent most of her career as a science in science communication (director and producer of BBC documentaries, then a "communications" role at Cambridge).
I like TBL as an example partly because of his interest in the broader consequences of technology, and the contrast with people who have made money from the technology her inventented being peers.
TBL's work has also mainly been in the field of communications, of course.
In the UK (and other places like NZ/AU), public servants are permanent. They're not elected in any way.
So they are employees of their departments and don't change when a minister changes. Ministers are almost always a member of Parliament and appointed by the Prime Minister, so they can change at any time.
Usually a government will have some changes at the top of departments (the "Permanent Secretary") and high level executives, but that's also a "change of government to another party" event.
So they are employees of their departments and don't change when a minister changes. Ministers are almost always a member of Parliament and appointed by the Prime Minister, so they can change at any time.
Usually a government will have some changes at the top of departments (the "Permanent Secretary") and high level executives, but that's also a "change of government to another party" event.
In the US we colloquially call that "career staff". The people at the top are usually political employees, but rank and file will typically stay from one administration to the next.
A big part of the "project 2025" idea was to reduce career employees and make everybody effectively a political appointee.
A big part of the "project 2025" idea was to reduce career employees and make everybody effectively a political appointee.
If you can, watch the (very) old TV series called "Yes Minister" from UK television (it's from the 70s/80s).
Sir Humphrey Appelby often explains to the Minister Jim Hacker how the Minister sets "policy" and it is the "humble public servants" that carry out that policy, having attended to the details that are required when dealing with the heavy business of government across departments, while leaving the Minister to concentrate on the "big picture", and doing his job, which is:
1. Defend the Ministry in Parliament
2. Make sure that the Ministry's budget is defended in Cabinet
Sir Humphrey Appelby often explains to the Minister Jim Hacker how the Minister sets "policy" and it is the "humble public servants" that carry out that policy, having attended to the details that are required when dealing with the heavy business of government across departments, while leaving the Minister to concentrate on the "big picture", and doing his job, which is:
1. Defend the Ministry in Parliament
2. Make sure that the Ministry's budget is defended in Cabinet
The EU is governed by the European Commission, which is not elected. Say what you will about reactionary British conservatives, the fact remains that the EU is not a particularly democratic organisation.
The Bundesrat in Switzerland is also not elected directly by the people, it's elected by Congress. The Bundeskanzler in Germany are not also not elected directly by the people, they are elected by Congress.
It only shows that you have no clue how EU and it's institutions works, how they are chosen (and elected) and why it was done this way :D yes, it's a huge compromise to satisfy both direct democracy via PE and member state governments. What's more, the actual composition of the government in most of the countries is not elected either (you as a populace don't vote who would be your prime minister, nor it's cabinet... or who will new president nominate)
How is that true, if the body that nominates the European Commission _is_ elected??
By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected.
(If you go for the direct election argument, the UK fares pretty badly BTW.)
By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected.
(If you go for the direct election argument, the UK fares pretty badly BTW.)
> By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected.
It's a matter of degree rather than a binary. Representative democracy is a little less democratic than direct democracy. Elections every 20 years are a bit less democratic than elections every 5 years. Having the elected representatives appoint a head of state is a bit less democratic than electing one directly. The more layers of indirection you add, the more it becomes a bureaucratic oligarchy.
It's a matter of degree rather than a binary. Representative democracy is a little less democratic than direct democracy. Elections every 20 years are a bit less democratic than elections every 5 years. Having the elected representatives appoint a head of state is a bit less democratic than electing one directly. The more layers of indirection you add, the more it becomes a bureaucratic oligarchy.
I agree. But my point is: Neither are UK or the US really clean democracies. In the US there is an entire system of courts that operate in a completely opaque way (eg FISA court). See my other post below for further examples.
It seems here that because the EU likes to regulate more, people somehow perceive it as less democratic.
It seems here that because the EU likes to regulate more, people somehow perceive it as less democratic.
It's not so much that the EU regulates more as that it has very little accountability to the public. I think people perceive it as less democratic because it is less democratic. (Which in no way excuses the FISA court etc.).
The body that nominates the Commission isn't elected.
In theory the Commission is mostly made up of civil servants who answer to commissioners, who are themselves nominated by each country's own government or civil service. Each commissioner has one area of responsibility only, and they answer to the head of the Commission who is their boss. So someone in the UK votes for a politician, who votes for a party leader, who appoints some ministers, and those ministers may or may not have much of a say in whoever gets nominated to be a commissioner - one of many. But there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect and the person your vote ends up influencing doesn't do anything important to your country or needs.
In practice it doesn't actually work that way. In practice, the head of the Commission has veto power over the nominations. They aren't supposed to according to the treaties but the treaties are ignored. This means that in reality it's the head of the Commission who picks the Commissioners, because they can just reject anyone who isn't sufficiently aligned with their own agenda.
So that leaves the question of how the head of the Commission is picked. Once again there is theory and practice. In theory, it's a decision of the heads of each state that they take together to select some candidates, and the Parliament then gets to vote for their preferred candidate. In practice ... nobody knows how the head is picked. Ursula von der Leyen was recently re-appointed despite being plagued by scandals and having a long career of failing upwards. Parliament was sidelined by giving them a voting list with only one candidate on it (her). Seek out an explanation of how she got this job and you won't find one because:
1. The heads of state don't talk about how they decide as a group. Is it a vote? Some sort of horse trading? Do they take it in turns? Are they even all able to take part? Nobody knows.
2. There's no record of which country voted for who, or why.
3. The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear.
4. Because no head of state has any control over who gets onto the candidate list, they never talk on the campaign trail about how they will "vote" (assuming that's how it works) for who runs the EU.
In other words, the process is entirely secret. The potential for corruption is unlimited.
So when critics say the EU Commission is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, they are right and those who argue otherwise here on HN are wrong. People who got their jobs via a process so opaque and indirect that how it functions can't be explained, not even in principle, cannot claim to be democratically selected.
In theory the Commission is mostly made up of civil servants who answer to commissioners, who are themselves nominated by each country's own government or civil service. Each commissioner has one area of responsibility only, and they answer to the head of the Commission who is their boss. So someone in the UK votes for a politician, who votes for a party leader, who appoints some ministers, and those ministers may or may not have much of a say in whoever gets nominated to be a commissioner - one of many. But there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect and the person your vote ends up influencing doesn't do anything important to your country or needs.
In practice it doesn't actually work that way. In practice, the head of the Commission has veto power over the nominations. They aren't supposed to according to the treaties but the treaties are ignored. This means that in reality it's the head of the Commission who picks the Commissioners, because they can just reject anyone who isn't sufficiently aligned with their own agenda.
So that leaves the question of how the head of the Commission is picked. Once again there is theory and practice. In theory, it's a decision of the heads of each state that they take together to select some candidates, and the Parliament then gets to vote for their preferred candidate. In practice ... nobody knows how the head is picked. Ursula von der Leyen was recently re-appointed despite being plagued by scandals and having a long career of failing upwards. Parliament was sidelined by giving them a voting list with only one candidate on it (her). Seek out an explanation of how she got this job and you won't find one because:
1. The heads of state don't talk about how they decide as a group. Is it a vote? Some sort of horse trading? Do they take it in turns? Are they even all able to take part? Nobody knows.
2. There's no record of which country voted for who, or why.
3. The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear.
4. Because no head of state has any control over who gets onto the candidate list, they never talk on the campaign trail about how they will "vote" (assuming that's how it works) for who runs the EU.
In other words, the process is entirely secret. The potential for corruption is unlimited.
So when critics say the EU Commission is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, they are right and those who argue otherwise here on HN are wrong. People who got their jobs via a process so opaque and indirect that how it functions can't be explained, not even in principle, cannot claim to be democratically selected.
I don't buy your arguments.
> Parliament was sidelined by giving them a voting list with only one candidate on it (her).
This implies that the parliament has to pick on who is on the ballot, which it doesn't: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240710IP...
She was elected with a majority - albeit not a huge one. Still: elected. This is an example of "there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect".
How about another counterexample: In the US the members of the Federal Reserve are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (so an indirect path, but fairly short), for 14 years! The Supreme Justices are appointed for life. To take this to a hypothetical extreme, image now calling a country "democratic" where you just hold elections once per lifetime.
That doesn't really strike me as democratic, as the "demos", the people, change their minds more often than once in 14 years, or once per lifetime.
Of course, the EU I'm sure also has appointments that go beyond the standard 4-5-ish years. But my point is: the EU isn't as undemocratic as you make it to be and the US/UK isn't as democratic as you may think. Both are muddling along, and probably neither reach Swiss levels.
> The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear
Your points 1.-4. apply to many appointments in the US and UK that are similarly undemocratic: To take an example from the UK: The Governor of the Bank of England is appointed by the Chancellor+PM. Again, no one knows who or why they made the decision the way they made it. Were they friends with the future Governor? Did their party engage in some horse trading with the opposition to secure other benefits in turn for nominating a particular person? No one knows.
> Parliament was sidelined by giving them a voting list with only one candidate on it (her).
This implies that the parliament has to pick on who is on the ballot, which it doesn't: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240710IP...
She was elected with a majority - albeit not a huge one. Still: elected. This is an example of "there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect".
How about another counterexample: In the US the members of the Federal Reserve are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (so an indirect path, but fairly short), for 14 years! The Supreme Justices are appointed for life. To take this to a hypothetical extreme, image now calling a country "democratic" where you just hold elections once per lifetime.
That doesn't really strike me as democratic, as the "demos", the people, change their minds more often than once in 14 years, or once per lifetime.
Of course, the EU I'm sure also has appointments that go beyond the standard 4-5-ish years. But my point is: the EU isn't as undemocratic as you make it to be and the US/UK isn't as democratic as you may think. Both are muddling along, and probably neither reach Swiss levels.
> The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear
Your points 1.-4. apply to many appointments in the US and UK that are similarly undemocratic: To take an example from the UK: The Governor of the Bank of England is appointed by the Chancellor+PM. Again, no one knows who or why they made the decision the way they made it. Were they friends with the future Governor? Did their party engage in some horse trading with the opposition to secure other benefits in turn for nominating a particular person? No one knows.
The governor of the Bank of England is indeed not democratically elected, and people do criticize that fact. I'm one of them!
But people certainly do know how that position is selected, by whom and for what reason. The current governor of the BoE has a long history of running government financial institutions, including in the central bank itself. He is a civil servant and is thus picked by the Chancellor, who is himself picked by the Prime Minister. No mysteries there. He is eminently qualified for the role.
On 3 June 2019, it was reported in The Times that Bailey was the favourite to replace Mark Carney as the new governor of the Bank of England.[9] Sajid Javid had also intervened in support of Bailey.[10][11] According to The Economist: "He is widely seen within the bank as a safe pair of hands, an experienced technocrat who knows how to manage an organisation."[12]
Previously he served as the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England under Mervyn King from January 2004 until April 2011, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for Prudential Regulation under Mark Carney from April 2013 to July 2016 and Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority from 2016 to 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bailey_(banker)
But people certainly do know how that position is selected, by whom and for what reason. The current governor of the BoE has a long history of running government financial institutions, including in the central bank itself. He is a civil servant and is thus picked by the Chancellor, who is himself picked by the Prime Minister. No mysteries there. He is eminently qualified for the role.
On 3 June 2019, it was reported in The Times that Bailey was the favourite to replace Mark Carney as the new governor of the Bank of England.[9] Sajid Javid had also intervened in support of Bailey.[10][11] According to The Economist: "He is widely seen within the bank as a safe pair of hands, an experienced technocrat who knows how to manage an organisation."[12]
Previously he served as the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England under Mervyn King from January 2004 until April 2011, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for Prudential Regulation under Mark Carney from April 2013 to July 2016 and Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority from 2016 to 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bailey_(banker)
You're absolutely right.
You can also even just observe the following litmus test of democratic legitimacy: what percentage of people have even heard of Ursula von der Leyen (or most of her predecessors) before her appointment to the most powerful position in the EU? Contrast that with their country's president or prime minister and you will see why one is democratically legitimate and the other is not.
You can also even just observe the following litmus test of democratic legitimacy: what percentage of people have even heard of Ursula von der Leyen (or most of her predecessors) before her appointment to the most powerful position in the EU? Contrast that with their country's president or prime minister and you will see why one is democratically legitimate and the other is not.
The current prime minister of the uk was not elected for the position, they were given it by virtue of leading the party that won the most seats, the leadership of which was not voted for by the general public.
Yes, but people know who the head of the party was, and they knew who their local MP would be.
People dislike changes of party leadership by the party in power between elections because they get someone they did not vote for.
It is also only one layer removed from the people directly voted in. The EU Commissioners are another layer or too removed from who people voted for.
People dislike changes of party leadership by the party in power between elections because they get someone they did not vote for.
It is also only one layer removed from the people directly voted in. The EU Commissioners are another layer or too removed from who people voted for.
EU commissioners have no voice of their own, they are simply a vassal of the elected government of their country.
It is up to the states to decide how they appoint their commisioner.
That's still democracy! Right?
Yeah but the EU ones are very powerful
Beware the EU deep (super)state! But don't fear, it's no match for our shallow catchphrases!
"Deep supranational political and economic union" really doesn't have the same ring to it.
Deep Economic Supranational Political Association Integrating Regions would be catchy.
Just call it a country and be done with it.
It has a parliament, a flag (adopted - its the flag of Europe originated by the Council of Europe), a national anthem (likewise adopting a well known piece of music) and a de facto constitution (it was essentially PR move to drop plans to call it a constitution - the substance did not change).
It has a parliament, a flag (adopted - its the flag of Europe originated by the Council of Europe), a national anthem (likewise adopting a well known piece of music) and a de facto constitution (it was essentially PR move to drop plans to call it a constitution - the substance did not change).
Interestingly enough, none of those things are required for a country. That said, a 1-member local branch of the disney fan club might have all 3, and we wouldn't consider it to be a country.
Having a majority of countries recognize you as a country is pretty much all that's required, if that.
Having a majority of countries recognize you as a country is pretty much all that's required, if that.
> That said, a 1-member local branch of the disney fan club might have all 3
A Disney fan club can pass legislation?
A Disney fan club can pass legislation?
It has a parliament (of 1) that makes laws within its jurisdiction (membership of the club).
This resistance people have to learn from both history and short-term events (on a historical scale) is impressive.
It has the same soundbites, and the narrative same structure, and the gullible still takes it.
Now the true question: are they gullible people, or just people pretending to be gullible to push an agenda?
It has the same soundbites, and the narrative same structure, and the gullible still takes it.
Now the true question: are they gullible people, or just people pretending to be gullible to push an agenda?
Newsflash: the Pentagon has literally _millions_ of bureaucrats.
None elected.
Unelected people are tasked with defending the free world. how about that?
None elected.
Unelected people are tasked with defending the free world. how about that?
I do wonder whether some people have thought out the end-game, in the event that they plan to simply fire all those people, turn them out onto the street, and replace them with nothing.
I mean, one outcome is the obvious collapse of the Pentagon. But it seems like an oversight to have those people, now with a bone to pick, running around loose. Do they propose to take all the bad Pentagon bureaucrats and confine them in some way? I wouldn't want to be the Sgt. Shultz in charge of being those guys' jailer. Seems like it would be a tall, tall order.
I mean, one outcome is the obvious collapse of the Pentagon. But it seems like an oversight to have those people, now with a bone to pick, running around loose. Do they propose to take all the bad Pentagon bureaucrats and confine them in some way? I wouldn't want to be the Sgt. Shultz in charge of being those guys' jailer. Seems like it would be a tall, tall order.
Millions of bureaucrats plotting to start new wars neither American public nor the rest of the world will not benefit from.
defending the un-free world, I think you mean. Unless you are exempt from forcible extraction of your wealth (taxes).
The actual CEO, Ben Collins, has been running The Onion for a short while and his background was as a reporter for NBC. He covered a lot of internet topics very, very well (IMO).
Ben Collins' personal Twitter presence did real damage to the credibility of modern political journalists, imho.
His tweets were soaked in that glib faux-distinterested mid-2010s hyper-online style (but he would still tweet four times an hour, carefully calculating the most likely-to-trend level of ironic detachment for his 'epic' dunk on whoever Twitter's victim of the day was). He had a memorable feud with Nate Silver, in which he (Collins) demonstrated utter ignorance of elementary math, to farm likes off of the then-'out' Silver. Collins treated Twitter like he was the starring character in a high school melodrama.
For almost any 'bad Twitter take' cliché you can think of, there's a Ben Collins tweet (which, to be fair, is still much less bad than the worst of the new Twitter).
The Onion is a good landing point for him.
His tweets were soaked in that glib faux-distinterested mid-2010s hyper-online style (but he would still tweet four times an hour, carefully calculating the most likely-to-trend level of ironic detachment for his 'epic' dunk on whoever Twitter's victim of the day was). He had a memorable feud with Nate Silver, in which he (Collins) demonstrated utter ignorance of elementary math, to farm likes off of the then-'out' Silver. Collins treated Twitter like he was the starring character in a high school melodrama.
For almost any 'bad Twitter take' cliché you can think of, there's a Ben Collins tweet (which, to be fair, is still much less bad than the worst of the new Twitter).
The Onion is a good landing point for him.
> His tweets were soaked in that glib faux-distinterested mid-2010s hyper-online style
I think this is generational rather than decade-al. That's just how Gen X/early millenials talk about everything, and it's why Bluesky is still like that.
The other big example is that awful Cory Doctorow babytalk word "enshittification" - they love dropping in the occasional swear but only to make things sound even more smarmy.
I think this is generational rather than decade-al. That's just how Gen X/early millenials talk about everything, and it's why Bluesky is still like that.
The other big example is that awful Cory Doctorow babytalk word "enshittification" - they love dropping in the occasional swear but only to make things sound even more smarmy.
> My only worry is that this acquisition makes Global Tetraeder so large that it attracts the attention of those pesky EU bureaucrats, who will want to split it up into multiple imperfect solids.
Based on what previous in-real-life examples is this a realistic worry? AFAIK, "EU bureaucrats" haven't broken up a single US-based company before so seems like a weird thing to be worried about.
Based on what previous in-real-life examples is this a realistic worry? AFAIK, "EU bureaucrats" haven't broken up a single US-based company before so seems like a weird thing to be worried about.
Are you really criticizing The Onion's fact-checking?
Can you spot any problems with their plan for the supplement inventory?
> we plan to collect the entire stock of the InfoWars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents down into a single candy bar–sized omnivitamin that one executive (I will not name names) may eat in order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal
Can you spot any problems with their plan for the supplement inventory?
> we plan to collect the entire stock of the InfoWars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents down into a single candy bar–sized omnivitamin that one executive (I will not name names) may eat in order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal
>Can you spot any problems with their plan for the supplement inventory?
as a regular reader of infowars and a happy customer of their supplements, i cannot see any flaw in that logic and can only hope that i, a successful business executive, will be the person they choose to give immortality to.
as a regular reader of infowars and a happy customer of their supplements, i cannot see any flaw in that logic and can only hope that i, a successful business executive, will be the person they choose to give immortality to.
I was a worker on that project. A crumb of the omnivitamin fell off and touched my right hand and now that hand doesn't age anymore like Bruce Willis's hands in Death Becomes Her
More like Death Becrumbs Her
Sorry, we're being critical of the EU - logic doesn't apply!
It almost feels like a joke to be honest!
> Based on what previous in-real-life examples is this a realistic worry
My interpretation is that the post you replied to was 100% satire.
My interpretation is that the post you replied to was 100% satire.
Well a tetrahedron can be split into four tetrahedra and an octahedron...
dont get it twisted. this is a business move lol.
"Much like family members, our brands are abstract nodes of wealth, interchangeable assets for their patriarch to absorb and discard according to the opaque whims of the market. And just like family members, our brands regard one another with mutual suspicion and malice."
Glorious.
Glorious.
That part hurt a little bit, recently had to start looking at family just like this.
It felt like coming home here.
On a whim, I decided to peek at the InfoWars homepage. At this moment, I cannot determine which of the headlines are genuine InfoWars content and which are the product of Onion writers. (I assume it's genuine due to the recency of the sale closing?)
Are you trying to tell us that Infowars wasn't already outsourcing its content creation to Onion writers before the sale? Big, if true.
This seems like an incredible opportunity to see if it's possible to reprogram InfoWars readers away from the hate and the conspiracy theories.
It would be a massive undertaking but wouldn't it be funny if the savior of modern media turned out to be a student newspaper from Madison, Wisconsin?
It would be a massive undertaking but wouldn't it be funny if the savior of modern media turned out to be a student newspaper from Madison, Wisconsin?
InfoWars audience is loyal only to Jones himself and will never visit InfoWars again. Jones will go elsewhere, 100% of his audience will follow, and the Onion is in for a big letdown. If you are dreaming about reprogramming Jone's followers by taking over InfoWars, it just shows that you know nothing about the typical InfoWars consumer.
This my view, in fact the whole thing completely puzzles me, Jones is free to publish his vile views elsewhere and his followers will find him. Infowars "onion-style" would have to be pretty dammed subtle to "trick" Jonesites into consuming it sincerely.
How the parents of the Sandy Hook victims use their compensation is their business but I feel supporting advocacy for better mental health facilities in the USA would be a better use of the money.
How the parents of the Sandy Hook victims use their compensation is their business but I feel supporting advocacy for better mental health facilities in the USA would be a better use of the money.
You are overestimating them. By far.
I will never cease to by amused by the idea that Jones' fans value the InfoWars brand and website above Jones himself. He is a celebrity among his fans. Exactly 0 of them will pay any attention to InfoWars the minute Jones is no longer associated with the brand.
> The Onion is in for a big letdown.
I don’t think they expected anything different. I think they saw the brand for sale at firesale prices, and decided they could use it. In fact, they’re one of the only ’mainstream’ outlets that can use the InfoWars brand, since it’s funny. Perhaps they will set up a ‘competing’ ‘right-wing’ satire site ala Colbert Report vs Daily Show.
I don’t think they expected anything different. I think they saw the brand for sale at firesale prices, and decided they could use it. In fact, they’re one of the only ’mainstream’ outlets that can use the InfoWars brand, since it’s funny. Perhaps they will set up a ‘competing’ ‘right-wing’ satire site ala Colbert Report vs Daily Show.
The Babylon Bee is a pretty right wing version of The Onion with articles titled things like "Satan Devastated After Kamala Loses Election".
https://babylonbee.com/
https://babylonbee.com/
But that actually has a right-wing agenda right? I was talking about being ironically right wing.
The difficulty with this is that anything that isn’t a hard 180 involves continuing to publish approximately the same type of content for a while, which is probably unpalatable to The Onion. Anything that is a small enough course correction to retain its audience is too small a shift to get away from that hateful nonsense. It’s a nice idea to try to steer people away, but you have to start off by driving in the same direction, which nobody wants to do.
I have an inkling that Poe’s Law could almost bridge the gap in some way…
"they're turning the frogs straight!"
> This seems like an incredible opportunity to see if it's possible to reprogram InfoWars readers away from the hate and the conspiracy theories.
Not a chance; they just flee to other outlets. Even Fox News saw huge numbers of people jump to NewsMax and OANN and whatnot.
Not a chance; they just flee to other outlets. Even Fox News saw huge numbers of people jump to NewsMax and OANN and whatnot.
The trick is to do it without the readers noticing.
Not terribly hard as Info warriors aren't known for being detail oriented. Credulity is somewhat of a requirement to be sincere.
> The trick is to lie to them to get them away from their hateful and conspiracy theories
I can't articulate what you're admitting to exactly, but it's an interesting admission.
On a more serious note, most of the readers of these kinds of outlets aren't stupid in this specific sense. They go looking for confirmation, rather than new information. This is why they're hard to untangle.
I can't articulate what you're admitting to exactly, but it's an interesting admission.
On a more serious note, most of the readers of these kinds of outlets aren't stupid in this specific sense. They go looking for confirmation, rather than new information. This is why they're hard to untangle.
> They go looking for confirmation, rather than new information. This is why they're hard to untangle.
This applies to most readers of most things, not just fringe content on the Left or the Right.
Most people are stuck in their confirmation biases, and few make an intellectual effort to look at topics from multiple angles and via multiple media outlets on various sides of the political spectrum.
This applies to most readers of most things, not just fringe content on the Left or the Right.
Most people are stuck in their confirmation biases, and few make an intellectual effort to look at topics from multiple angles and via multiple media outlets on various sides of the political spectrum.
Only if they notice. They're stupid enough to have followed infowars in the first place
[deleted]
what is the difference, really, between the way the word "hate" is used now and the they the word "sin" was used 200 years ago?
Easy, hate is what those people throwing stones were feeling, and sun is what they were accusing that woman of. You know the verse, right?
The hate remains the same today, except now the “sin” is being gay, or getting raped, etc.
The hate remains the same today, except now the “sin” is being gay, or getting raped, etc.
not seeing your point
It looks like it's down now?
nixdev(1)
Reading the article didn't give me any confidence it's actually real/true. Which could be seen as a compliment.
It is actually true! https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/business/media/alex-jones...
they are shutting us down even without a court order this morning
He seems surprised. I guess losing a multi-year court case, being fined $1,500,000,000.00 by a jury, and going through bankruptcy court wasn't enough of a warning?
He seems surprised. I guess losing a multi-year court case, being fined $1,500,000,000.00 by a jury, and going through bankruptcy court wasn't enough of a warning?
Part of the MO of these outrage merchants is that they simultaneously claim that the government perpetrate the most vile acts (killing children, poisoning the water, false flag attacks) while also acting outraged and surprised that they'd do something as mundane as ignore a procedure.
It's a grifting method. Provoke outrage among the less informed and watch the money roll in
Alex Jones using Twitter/X is on-brand.
Of course, Tim Onion is primarily on Bluesky, other than to occasionally rile up Musk
I hadn't realized how hilarious this is until now
I don't understand your point
Since Musk's acquisition of Twitter, it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories. And Alex Jones' InfoWars and Elon Musk's Twitter are both likely to show you advertisements for supplements of dubious effectiveness and other generally scammy products.
So yeah, Jones fits right in there.
So yeah, Jones fits right in there.
So on the one hand you had Twitter, where the impression you would have had in the first few days of November is that Trump was probably going to win the election.
On the other hand you had most other platforms like Reddit, with relatively heavy-handed moderation, where the impression you would have had in the first few days of November is that Trump was probably going to lose the election.
So when you want to make a prior judgement on an extremely consequential outcome, which a posteriori was not even close, and one information ecosystem gives you the right answer, and most of the other information ecosystems give you the wrong answer, which information ecosystems do you classify as "echo chambers"?
It's possible that this was just a fluke, but it should certainly make you update your priors on which ecosystems provide a more representative sample of base reality.
On the other hand you had most other platforms like Reddit, with relatively heavy-handed moderation, where the impression you would have had in the first few days of November is that Trump was probably going to lose the election.
So when you want to make a prior judgement on an extremely consequential outcome, which a posteriori was not even close, and one information ecosystem gives you the right answer, and most of the other information ecosystems give you the wrong answer, which information ecosystems do you classify as "echo chambers"?
It's possible that this was just a fluke, but it should certainly make you update your priors on which ecosystems provide a more representative sample of base reality.
If I confidently declare ahead of time the result of a coin flip, I may turn out to be correct, but my confidence was still unjustified. And furthermore, my getting it right would not necessitate a “fluke”.
I’m on Reddit a fair bit and while it’s difficult to know the overall biases of the greater community based on what I see individually, I don’t have a lot of trouble believing that there was a bias toward a particular desired result. But, I honestly didn’t see much in the way of a bias one way or the other in the expected result. I mostly saw a lot of anxiety over not knowing what result to expect.
I’m on Reddit a fair bit and while it’s difficult to know the overall biases of the greater community based on what I see individually, I don’t have a lot of trouble believing that there was a bias toward a particular desired result. But, I honestly didn’t see much in the way of a bias one way or the other in the expected result. I mostly saw a lot of anxiety over not knowing what result to expect.
Elections are not remotely a "coin flip" though?
Well sure, but the predicting the results of this particular election was very much a coin flip.
I disagree. The media makes it seem like a coin flip, but the prediction markets where people are focused on making money was accurate.
This is compared to the media who are more interested in pushing lies and ideology.
Personally, I don’t care what the “media” was saying. I care what the polling data and the election models based on the polling data were saying. They were saying pretty consistently that this could go either way, but that at the same time the result may not turn out to be actually that close. Those two aren’t incompatible.
It could go either way? It might be close, or maybe not?
Imagine taking any of that seriously. Didn't they give Hillary an 80% chance?
Imagine taking any of that seriously. Didn't they give Hillary an 80% chance?
How could Hillary lose if she had an 80% chance? That seems impossible (if i'm bad at math)!
Why wouldn't you take it seriously? "Could go either way" is a perfectly reasonable prediction based on the polls that we all were seeing.
Imagine being such a condescending douche…and an ignorant one to boot.
If any other profession was as consistently wrong as pollsters are, would they be taken seriously?
I think the main job of pollsters is to provide content for corporate media (the closer the polls the better for attracting eyeballs for advertisers).
And they do this job admirably. It just has nothing to do with the election.
You don’t value polling, ok. No use continuing to go back and forth about it. Instead, maybe you’ll feel like responding to one of the other commenters that replied to you about prediction markets…
The polling was pretty darn close though, overall. Same as in 2016. The thing is, there's enough polls out there that people can pick the outliers and decide themselves into a narrative that makes them feel good.
It's an incredibly small number of voters in the key swing states that actually decide the election. It's under 1% of the voters to swing the election. Winner take all + electoral college will give you that.
It's an incredibly small number of voters in the key swing states that actually decide the election. It's under 1% of the voters to swing the election. Winner take all + electoral college will give you that.
The prediction markets can be influenced by governments, companies etc who have no desire to make short term money.
But polling results cannot. Right.
> the prediction markets
PredictIt was predicting the opposite outcome up to the day of the election.
PredictIt was predicting the opposite outcome up to the day of the election.
Not true. PredictIt was predicting Trump for 3 weeks prior up until 27th where it took a dive. This is likely due to over-reacting to the Puerto Rican island garbage joke at MSG on the 27th. Not saying prediction markets will be perfectly accurate but they will certainly be better than pollsters.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7456/Who-will-win-t...
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7456/Who-will-win-t...
I didn’t say it always predicted Harris the winner. I said that it was predicting her to win just before the election. She was also leading during the entire period between August 17-October 10, and likely somewhat earlier (I can only see the 90-day history on my phone).
The point here is that there is no “the prediction markets” one can speak of as a cohesive unit.
The point here is that there is no “the prediction markets” one can speak of as a cohesive unit.
The most historically accurate and least able to be gamed, predictit.org, did not overwhelmingly predict Trump.
> I’m on Reddit a fair bit and while it’s difficult to know the overall biases of the greater community based on what any one person sees
Left. Censored media leans left. Censored forums, news, communities are censored to give credit to left ideas. Symmetrically, left ideas only thrive by hiding information.
With complete transparency, people lean right.
Left. Censored media leans left. Censored forums, news, communities are censored to give credit to left ideas. Symmetrically, left ideas only thrive by hiding information.
With complete transparency, people lean right.
Moderated media leans left. At least some of the reason it ends up that way is that many of the people who violate incredibly reasonable rules are conservative. Certain groups of hard-right people will say some incredibly bigoted shit that's absolutely out of line and makes it impossible to have a civilized conversation, then they complain about getting banned and drag a bunch of moderately-more-reasonable people with them when they leave. Once those people leave, normal everyday non-asshole conservatives realize the platform has less conservative content and leave in search of spaces that they feel respect their viewpoints more. In some cases entire topic-groups get banned (/r/the_donald is a good example) for legitimate reasons that frequently involve a small extremely-active group of members, and the rest of the members will also leave the platform because all they see is that a group they were part of got banned.
People who lean to the left tend to believe that it's bad to do some of the things that get you justifiably banned (such as intentionally using language that demeans people based on immutable traits). Because of this, it's much easier for them to avoid being deplatformed.
People who lean to the left tend to believe that it's bad to do some of the things that get you justifiably banned (such as intentionally using language that demeans people based on immutable traits). Because of this, it's much easier for them to avoid being deplatformed.
Thank you for capably providing a successful demonstration of the point you replied to:
it’s difficult to know the overall biases of the greater community based on what any one person sees.
it’s difficult to know the overall biases of the greater community based on what any one person sees.
One of the two echo chambers was bound to be correct in terms of vote counting.
what's the standard now for a not close election? dems have to always win the popular vote now?
4 swing states were decided by a 1% difference. this election was close.
4 swing states were decided by a 1% difference. this election was close.
the game is to win the swing states. that is all that matters and both parties know it.
Trump won all 7 swing states and the popular vote by a few million. it was not a close election whatsoever. even Clinton won Nevada
Trump won all 7 swing states and the popular vote by a few million. it was not a close election whatsoever. even Clinton won Nevada
Reddit depends very much on which subreddit you are. There's plenty of racists, trump supporters and so on on reddit.
Given the large amount of information that Twitter claimed that turned out to be false, one correct claim doesn't really change much. It goes from around 0/1000 correct to 1/1001 correct. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
[deleted]
The vibe on other platforms was that it was going to be close, not that Kamala was going to win, which is the correct even handed judgement, and now all the votes have being counted, was correct.
The idea that I stopped clock is right twice a day but because it's twitter that means it's always right is a bit... come on. Hackernews commenters are supposed to be better than that.
The idea that I stopped clock is right twice a day but because it's twitter that means it's always right is a bit... come on. Hackernews commenters are supposed to be better than that.
You realize old Twitter was literally censoring things they knew to be true but politically damaging, right? Or are you still operating in 2022?
Twitter is right wing because your country (and the world) are shifting right. Sorry.
Twitter is right wing because your country (and the world) are shifting right. Sorry.
You realise new twitter is literally censoring things that are a mild inconvenience to the Boss - who happens to be the new President-for-life buddy?
They were censoring leaked pictures of Hunter Biden's penis.
You can't run a service where it shows every single post that someone wants to put up, even if they're "legal". It'd get full of spam, offend everyone so much they leave, or just force everyone to see Hunter Biden's penis.
You can't run a service where it shows every single post that someone wants to put up, even if they're "legal". It'd get full of spam, offend everyone so much they leave, or just force everyone to see Hunter Biden's penis.
> it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories.
In what way? I still only see the very same industry-focused information that I first started using Twitter for. If anything, X has improved in pulling in information from more industry players than I was seeing before, so I consider it to be an even more compelling product now.
But perhaps that same algorithm improvement is what you ultimately mean? As in, that X has become better at finding the information you want to see, so if you have an interest in "right wing" or conspiracy content then it is a greater likelihood of it exposing you to that than the Twitter of yore did?
In what way? I still only see the very same industry-focused information that I first started using Twitter for. If anything, X has improved in pulling in information from more industry players than I was seeing before, so I consider it to be an even more compelling product now.
But perhaps that same algorithm improvement is what you ultimately mean? As in, that X has become better at finding the information you want to see, so if you have an interest in "right wing" or conspiracy content then it is a greater likelihood of it exposing you to that than the Twitter of yore did?
Just yesterday the Guardian newspaper put out a statement saying they will no longer be posting to x/twitter cause it’s gone down the toilet.
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-n...
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-n...
Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies. Good on them for realizing and backing away, I guess, but won't they still feed other platforms? It does not appear that they are willing to halt production on that realization. Not to mention that this encourages others to still share their content on X, defeating the whole intent of no longer posting... The story doesn't add up.
On second thought, this is clearly an advertisement disguised as news trying to latch onto searches for Twitter/X. They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place. X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out, like the aforementioned industry practitioners sharing what they are doing in industry.
On second thought, this is clearly an advertisement disguised as news trying to latch onto searches for Twitter/X. They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place. X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out, like the aforementioned industry practitioners sharing what they are doing in industry.
> Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies.
This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning.
> They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place
This is your claim - presented without evidence. You are also making multiple claims, also that The Guardian is publishing (essentially only) news on X and not also reactions, commentary and other content to X.
> X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out
The changes in the algorithm seem to have shifted this. News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices. The null hypothesis here would be that X is a place for nothing and beyond that - "maybe, or maybe not". I'm curious what evidence there is for X being an effective vehicle for 'personal' news distribution over time. Without that evidence, we should not accept any such claims.
This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning.
> They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place
This is your claim - presented without evidence. You are also making multiple claims, also that The Guardian is publishing (essentially only) news on X and not also reactions, commentary and other content to X.
> X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out
The changes in the algorithm seem to have shifted this. News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices. The null hypothesis here would be that X is a place for nothing and beyond that - "maybe, or maybe not". I'm curious what evidence there is for X being an effective vehicle for 'personal' news distribution over time. Without that evidence, we should not accept any such claims.
> This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning.
Go on. There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it. But as they are not backing away from producing the content on the same concern, the association doesn't add up at all.
> This is your claim - presented without evidence.
Of course. That's what a discussion forum is for. If you want someone else's claim naturally you'd go talk to them instead. But as you have chosen to interact with me, logically you are here to hear my claim as I give it.
Is there some additional pertinence to you pointing out the obvious here? Because if so, I am afraid I missed it.
> News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices.
Most importantly, the news is difficult to convey when the users aren't there for news from a news organization. Let's face it, X is not well suited to conveying long format news in the first place. While the character limit isn't what it once was, the entire format of the service remains not particularly amenable to that kind of content. It is really only good for individuals sharing small tidbits of information, like something they did at work.
There are much better services for news publishers. That is where the users are. That is where publisher effort is going to be best spent. Of course you are not going to waste your time posting news on X for that reason.
Go on. There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it. But as they are not backing away from producing the content on the same concern, the association doesn't add up at all.
> This is your claim - presented without evidence.
Of course. That's what a discussion forum is for. If you want someone else's claim naturally you'd go talk to them instead. But as you have chosen to interact with me, logically you are here to hear my claim as I give it.
Is there some additional pertinence to you pointing out the obvious here? Because if so, I am afraid I missed it.
> News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices.
Most importantly, the news is difficult to convey when the users aren't there for news from a news organization. Let's face it, X is not well suited to conveying long format news in the first place. While the character limit isn't what it once was, the entire format of the service remains not particularly amenable to that kind of content. It is really only good for individuals sharing small tidbits of information, like something they did at work.
There are much better services for news publishers. That is where the users are. That is where publisher effort is going to be best spent. Of course you are not going to waste your time posting news on X for that reason.
>There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it.
>but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise... (from your child comment)
One can choose to leave a group/platform/party without believing they are contributing to the negative direction the group has taken. If I go to a social club and find that new leadership and new members changed the focus from sports to anti-immigration, I might not want to be associated with them anymore. That has nothing to do with feeling like I was "feeding it" or "contributing" to it.
>but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise... (from your child comment)
One can choose to leave a group/platform/party without believing they are contributing to the negative direction the group has taken. If I go to a social club and find that new leadership and new members changed the focus from sports to anti-immigration, I might not want to be associated with them anymore. That has nothing to do with feeling like I was "feeding it" or "contributing" to it.
> One can choose to leave a group/platform/party without believing they are contributing to the negative direction the group has taken.
It is true that one can make up any arbitrary reason for leaving, sure. They could have also said they decided to leave because the moon crossed into their zodiac. But when you get down to it, that's never actually the reason.
Undoubtedly the real story is that there is no compelling economic reason to post on X. It is not a service for long-form news content. Nobody goes there to read that kind of content. It is like trying to post cat photos on HN. Soon you're going to realize that you are wasting your time. There are places for cat photos, as there are places for long-form new content, but HN and X, respectively, are not it.
> If I go to a social club and find that new leadership and new members changed the focus from sports to anti-immigration, I might not want to be associated with them anymore.
With material impact, perhaps. But posting on X is a solitary activity. This is more like giving up on Solitaire because you thought the Queen of Hearts looked at you funny. Which, no matter how much you claim it to be, doesn't make much sense. More likely you were just bored of the game and made up an expiation to not have to admit that you were bored.
It is true that one can make up any arbitrary reason for leaving, sure. They could have also said they decided to leave because the moon crossed into their zodiac. But when you get down to it, that's never actually the reason.
Undoubtedly the real story is that there is no compelling economic reason to post on X. It is not a service for long-form news content. Nobody goes there to read that kind of content. It is like trying to post cat photos on HN. Soon you're going to realize that you are wasting your time. There are places for cat photos, as there are places for long-form new content, but HN and X, respectively, are not it.
> If I go to a social club and find that new leadership and new members changed the focus from sports to anti-immigration, I might not want to be associated with them anymore.
With material impact, perhaps. But posting on X is a solitary activity. This is more like giving up on Solitaire because you thought the Queen of Hearts looked at you funny. Which, no matter how much you claim it to be, doesn't make much sense. More likely you were just bored of the game and made up an expiation to not have to admit that you were bored.
Amazing comedy act
The Guardian's reasoning is:
"X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse." [1]
"Social media can be an important tool for news organisations and help us to reach new audiences but at this point X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work. Our journalism is available and open to all on our website and we would prefer people to come to theguardian.com and support our work there" [1]
> There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it.
Could you define more precisely what you mean by "contributing to it?" I think my understanding there might differ from what you meant. I don't want to talk past nor at you.
> Of course. That's what a discussion forum is for. If you want someone else's claim naturally you'd go talk to them instead. But as you have chosen to interact with me, logically you are here to hear my claim as I give it.
Hacker news discussion has a culture of discussions based on supported claims. Unsupported claims are often challenged as being unsupported. The culture war topics often degrade as it gets more of the Reddit & X style crowds that are more interested in winning discussions rather than having discussions. I believe the culture of hacker news in this regard sets it apart. In essence, this guideline: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
> Is there some additional pertinence to you pointing out the obvious here? Because if so, I am afraid I missed it.
I want to drill into the substance of your claim, and/or better understand it. I think my first interpretation might have actually been off-base. (So please, do define better what you mean by "contributing to it.")
> Most importantly, the news is difficult to convey when the users aren't there for news from a news organization. Let's face it, X is not well suited to conveying long format news in the first place.
I largely agree and is a major criticism I have X and lots of social media (eg: reddit, facebook, instagram). I would go further and say that none of those forums are all that well suited for sharing truth, nor discovering truth. I am passionate about truth (it is why I love math, logic, science & programming so much. There is very little in life that is black & white, true or false, correct or wrong.)
> It is really only good for individuals sharing small tidbits of information
I agree. On the other side of the coin, tidbits of misinformation too. The culture on X I do not believe is to reward sharing true viewpoints. Instead, dunking & hot-takes are rewarded (AFAIK, my impression, particularly so for Reddit as well).
"X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse." [1]
"Social media can be an important tool for news organisations and help us to reach new audiences but at this point X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work. Our journalism is available and open to all on our website and we would prefer people to come to theguardian.com and support our work there" [1]
> There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it.
Could you define more precisely what you mean by "contributing to it?" I think my understanding there might differ from what you meant. I don't want to talk past nor at you.
> Of course. That's what a discussion forum is for. If you want someone else's claim naturally you'd go talk to them instead. But as you have chosen to interact with me, logically you are here to hear my claim as I give it.
Hacker news discussion has a culture of discussions based on supported claims. Unsupported claims are often challenged as being unsupported. The culture war topics often degrade as it gets more of the Reddit & X style crowds that are more interested in winning discussions rather than having discussions. I believe the culture of hacker news in this regard sets it apart. In essence, this guideline: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
> Is there some additional pertinence to you pointing out the obvious here? Because if so, I am afraid I missed it.
I want to drill into the substance of your claim, and/or better understand it. I think my first interpretation might have actually been off-base. (So please, do define better what you mean by "contributing to it.")
> Most importantly, the news is difficult to convey when the users aren't there for news from a news organization. Let's face it, X is not well suited to conveying long format news in the first place.
I largely agree and is a major criticism I have X and lots of social media (eg: reddit, facebook, instagram). I would go further and say that none of those forums are all that well suited for sharing truth, nor discovering truth. I am passionate about truth (it is why I love math, logic, science & programming so much. There is very little in life that is black & white, true or false, correct or wrong.)
> It is really only good for individuals sharing small tidbits of information
I agree. On the other side of the coin, tidbits of misinformation too. The culture on X I do not believe is to reward sharing true viewpoints. Instead, dunking & hot-takes are rewarded (AFAIK, my impression, particularly so for Reddit as well).
> "X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."
That may be true, but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise...
> "X has become a cesspool, our work no longer belongs there."
That doesn't really make any sense, but even if we accept the irrationality of it, they claim to still want others to share their content on X, so apparently their work does belong there. A curious contradiction.
> The culture of hacker news is to present evidences based discussion. Unsupported claims are challenged, very frequently with "citation needed." This is something that sets hacker news commentary apart from Reddit or X.*
I have to disagree. "Citation needed" is stupid Reddit nonsense (that sometimes creeps into HN, but thankfully infrequently; it is not acceptable behaviour). On Hacker News, there is an expecting of being smart enough to carry on your own conversation using your own words without needing to outsource to an arbitrary third-party. If bringing in data helps with your comment, so be it, but if all you can offer is something like "citation needed", you contribute nothing and are participating in anti-social, bad-faith behaviour.
Logically, if a comment is so poorly prepared that you can't figure it out on its own standing, you either:
1. Work with the author in good faith to understand what they are trying to say. If you find value in reaching for external resources to accomplish that, then fine. Offering something like "XYZ says this, which contradicts what I think you are trying to say. Was that your intent?" would be reasonable, but "Go do my homework for me!" is uncalled for.
2. Accept it as a lost cause and ignore it. Those who cannot string a worthwhile post together will soon grow bored with being ignored and leave. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.
(Why did you remove the rest?)
That may be true, but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise...
> "X has become a cesspool, our work no longer belongs there."
That doesn't really make any sense, but even if we accept the irrationality of it, they claim to still want others to share their content on X, so apparently their work does belong there. A curious contradiction.
> The culture of hacker news is to present evidences based discussion. Unsupported claims are challenged, very frequently with "citation needed." This is something that sets hacker news commentary apart from Reddit or X.*
I have to disagree. "Citation needed" is stupid Reddit nonsense (that sometimes creeps into HN, but thankfully infrequently; it is not acceptable behaviour). On Hacker News, there is an expecting of being smart enough to carry on your own conversation using your own words without needing to outsource to an arbitrary third-party. If bringing in data helps with your comment, so be it, but if all you can offer is something like "citation needed", you contribute nothing and are participating in anti-social, bad-faith behaviour.
Logically, if a comment is so poorly prepared that you can't figure it out on its own standing, you either:
1. Work with the author in good faith to understand what they are trying to say. If you find value in reaching for external resources to accomplish that, then fine. Offering something like "XYZ says this, which contradicts what I think you are trying to say. Was that your intent?" would be reasonable, but "Go do my homework for me!" is uncalled for.
2. Accept it as a lost cause and ignore it. Those who cannot string a worthwhile post together will soon grow bored with being ignored and leave. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.
(Why did you remove the rest?)
> "X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."
>> That may be true, but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise...
To be clear, the first quote is a direct quote from the Guardian article. Not my words. Does that change your response? I suspect it would, since their words would seemingly not be "irrelevent to the Guardian."
> I have to disagree. "Citation needed" is stupid Reddit nonsense
Interesting. My perspective is that this is more a wikipedia phenomenon. Reddit enjoys responses like "Sir, this is a Wendy's." The HN guideline that discussions should get more substantive I think means discussions should become more grounded in facts as claims are challenged and discussed.
> On Hacker News, there is an expecting of being smart enough to carry on your own conversation using your own words without needing to outsource to an arbitrary third-party.
Can you link this expectation back to the discussion guidelines? The first part of what you wrote here I could be convinced of. The second part, the "needing to outsource" part, I disagree with. Either a person on HN is an expert in the field, and if not, they should very much "outsource" their claims (AKA provide evidence) to show that those claims are supported and are not just random thoughts. Random thoughts are not truth, our perception and gut instincts are often wrong. What we think is generally kinda worthless, what we know via data & facts OTOH is information.
> but if all you can offer is something like "citation needed", you contribute nothing and are participating in anti-social, bad-faith behaviour.
If someone is making claims that are unsupported, potentially incorrect. Is pointing that out and asking for the basis of the claim completely without value? I agree it is a bit anti-social, but this is not improv where the best response is "yes, and...". In contrast, the alternative is to let bad info just sit, unchallenged, and IMO be perpetuated. So, is there no value in saying "hey, wait a minute, there is no data to support your claims; please back up and give that data, or make it clear that you're spouting pure opinion." We disagree seemingly that HN comments is a place for pure opinions (which is okay to disagree).
> Accept it as a lost cause and ignore it. Those who cannot string a worthwhile post together will soon grow bored with being ignored and leave. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.
Interesting. My view is there are plenty of trolls, they are legion, and they can "win" through sock puppetry and sheer volume. For example, this article is about The Onion & Infowars, yet most of the discussion is back to X. Most HN discussion of Elon Musk usually go off-topic and become dominated by very tired and familiar discussions. In part, it is not about the trolls but the other readers. It is clear when people cannot support their claims vs when they can.
> (Why did you remove the rest?)
My apologies. I was hoping you would not react quite so quickly. After getting a coffee, I think I may have profoundly misunderstood what you wrote and deleted my first response. The second response needed a little cleaning up to read well (my intent was not to alter the substance, but enhance clarity).
[*more edits, to enhance clarity]
>> That may be true, but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise...
To be clear, the first quote is a direct quote from the Guardian article. Not my words. Does that change your response? I suspect it would, since their words would seemingly not be "irrelevent to the Guardian."
> I have to disagree. "Citation needed" is stupid Reddit nonsense
Interesting. My perspective is that this is more a wikipedia phenomenon. Reddit enjoys responses like "Sir, this is a Wendy's." The HN guideline that discussions should get more substantive I think means discussions should become more grounded in facts as claims are challenged and discussed.
> On Hacker News, there is an expecting of being smart enough to carry on your own conversation using your own words without needing to outsource to an arbitrary third-party.
Can you link this expectation back to the discussion guidelines? The first part of what you wrote here I could be convinced of. The second part, the "needing to outsource" part, I disagree with. Either a person on HN is an expert in the field, and if not, they should very much "outsource" their claims (AKA provide evidence) to show that those claims are supported and are not just random thoughts. Random thoughts are not truth, our perception and gut instincts are often wrong. What we think is generally kinda worthless, what we know via data & facts OTOH is information.
> but if all you can offer is something like "citation needed", you contribute nothing and are participating in anti-social, bad-faith behaviour.
If someone is making claims that are unsupported, potentially incorrect. Is pointing that out and asking for the basis of the claim completely without value? I agree it is a bit anti-social, but this is not improv where the best response is "yes, and...". In contrast, the alternative is to let bad info just sit, unchallenged, and IMO be perpetuated. So, is there no value in saying "hey, wait a minute, there is no data to support your claims; please back up and give that data, or make it clear that you're spouting pure opinion." We disagree seemingly that HN comments is a place for pure opinions (which is okay to disagree).
> Accept it as a lost cause and ignore it. Those who cannot string a worthwhile post together will soon grow bored with being ignored and leave. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.
Interesting. My view is there are plenty of trolls, they are legion, and they can "win" through sock puppetry and sheer volume. For example, this article is about The Onion & Infowars, yet most of the discussion is back to X. Most HN discussion of Elon Musk usually go off-topic and become dominated by very tired and familiar discussions. In part, it is not about the trolls but the other readers. It is clear when people cannot support their claims vs when they can.
> (Why did you remove the rest?)
My apologies. I was hoping you would not react quite so quickly. After getting a coffee, I think I may have profoundly misunderstood what you wrote and deleted my first response. The second response needed a little cleaning up to read well (my intent was not to alter the substance, but enhance clarity).
[*more edits, to enhance clarity]
[deleted]
Make a burner account and log in to it. You will see what the parent comment is talking about.
Implying that is how people use X? Continually creating new burner accounts, not giving "the algorithm" what it needs to provide what they really want to see? Seems unlikely.
I suspect those who complain it is a "right wing" echo chamber are using longstanding accounts and actually engaging with "right wing" content, which trains "the algorithm" of their preference to see more of the same. Anecdotally, those I know who complain of "right wing" echo chambers are also the first people to gorge on "right wing" media to see what "they" are up to.
I suspect those who complain it is a "right wing" echo chamber are using longstanding accounts and actually engaging with "right wing" content, which trains "the algorithm" of their preference to see more of the same. Anecdotally, those I know who complain of "right wing" echo chambers are also the first people to gorge on "right wing" media to see what "they" are up to.
If you use lists, then you probably won't notice that much. However if your looking at the "for you" page, shits just kept on getting more extreme. Just wildly off the deepend scams or abuse.
Before you could just filter out that stuff as it was fairly rare. but its just everywhere.
Before you could just filter out that stuff as it was fairly rare. but its just everywhere.
> However if your looking at the "for you" page, shits just kept on getting more extreme.
That's all I ever read. I only follow a small number of people who produce high quality content related to my industry, though. Perhaps that is what primes the "For You" page to say within the same realm and not go off the rails as you suggest?
I'm sure you are right that garbage in, garbage out applies. But why feed it garbage?
That's all I ever read. I only follow a small number of people who produce high quality content related to my industry, though. Perhaps that is what primes the "For You" page to say within the same realm and not go off the rails as you suggest?
I'm sure you are right that garbage in, garbage out applies. But why feed it garbage?
I think the issue is that I follow people who had diverse opinions that were different to mine, from across the spectrum.
In the old times, you could see _why_ a tweet appeared in the stream (as in x follows, y liked, z replied) so curation could happen. But that's gone because musk finally figured out that him liking porn tweets was public.
Before I could say "I don't like edgelord content" and that class of tweet disappeared.
Hence the utility of lists for me. It allows me to follow people who regularly like content that I hate, but allows me to see what they tweet.
So, you are indeed right. I think I follow more than one subject, which causes the issue.
In the old times, you could see _why_ a tweet appeared in the stream (as in x follows, y liked, z replied) so curation could happen. But that's gone because musk finally figured out that him liking porn tweets was public.
Before I could say "I don't like edgelord content" and that class of tweet disappeared.
Hence the utility of lists for me. It allows me to follow people who regularly like content that I hate, but allows me to see what they tweet.
So, you are indeed right. I think I follow more than one subject, which causes the issue.
I take it that left wingers feel that "community notes" isn't effective or sufficient to combat right wing beliefs that are wrong?
The people on the right seem satisfied for now that they can "combat misinformation with more information". (That's a misquote by the way, I believe he said better information, not more. On second thought, he may have said it both ways.)
Has anyone discussed why the right believes this can work, and the left doesn't?
The people on the right seem satisfied for now that they can "combat misinformation with more information". (That's a misquote by the way, I believe he said better information, not more. On second thought, he may have said it both ways.)
Has anyone discussed why the right believes this can work, and the left doesn't?
The problem isn't "beliefs that are wrong", the problem is that it's Calvinball.
Say something happened, they'll say you don't have proof.
Show proof that it happened, they'll say it isn't a big deal.
Demonstrate a negative consequence, they'll say it's an isolated incident.
Show that it happens a lot, they'll say the victims deserve it.
And so on. Of course I don't have any proof.
Say something happened, they'll say you don't have proof.
Show proof that it happened, they'll say it isn't a big deal.
Demonstrate a negative consequence, they'll say it's an isolated incident.
Show that it happens a lot, they'll say the victims deserve it.
And so on. Of course I don't have any proof.
Bullshit Asymmetry Principle[0] always applies.
By the time Community Notes has appeared, tens or even hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people will have seen the misinformation.
Even once Community Notes have appeared, many won't read them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_asymmetry_principle
By the time Community Notes has appeared, tens or even hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people will have seen the misinformation.
Even once Community Notes have appeared, many won't read them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_asymmetry_principle
Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information? Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source. We know policing speech doesn't work, whoever does the policing introduces their own biases, this was clear as day with the hunter laptop story and how the goverment put pressure on social media companies to supress it.
> Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source.
If they’ve internalized/amplified it, they’ll believe the source, and disregard the contradictory information.
This has been well-established over the last, oh, 10 years. Facts are irrelevant if you can choose your own sources.
If they’ve internalized/amplified it, they’ll believe the source, and disregard the contradictory information.
This has been well-established over the last, oh, 10 years. Facts are irrelevant if you can choose your own sources.
This “sounds smart” and I’m sure it circulates well in conversation. In practice, no. The point of “facts” is to identify useful truths that guide decisions. When some portion of the distribution of people identify misalignment, which is inevitable—not optional—then they will true up.
4 years on and a significant proportion of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen. Just how many years will it take for that to true up?
I notice you don't make a definite claim that it wasn't stolen. You're annoyed by the fact others believe it was, based on what you feel is insufficient evidence, yes?
But if you can prove it wasn't, I'm interested
But if you can prove it wasn't, I'm interested
Surely the burden of proof is on those making a claim of election interference? Elections are designed to be reliable and there haven't been reports of previous elections being "stolen", so I would think that reasonable evidence should be provided if people want to push the idea that an election was interfered with.
It is absolutely fantastic that this assertion draws ire from those who have no substantial response. It is intended to poke you directly in the eyeballs. That crowd so often favors censorship to protect the same.
If you have a substantial response, cast it forth.
If you have a substantial response, cast it forth.
Your claim is not false, but not universally true either, the counter is alex jones, the flat earth movement, religion as well, you can spend nearly an infinity believing in lies. The human brain is quite malleable to lies.
So what? People have the right to be wrong and ignorant. It's far better than having The Ministry of Tru... sorry I mean Disinformation Governance Board. Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually. For example consider the Iraq war, a war the american public was rushed into without the free flow of information, something you seem keen on, but now that the public has access to info the same republican base that was in support of the war now hates war hawks like john bolton.
> Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually
Eventually, yes, but until it happens, bodies are piling up.
EDIT: Also, FWIW, the truth is often exposed nearly immediately, yet for some people, once they have chosen to believe the lie, they can't be convinced of the truth.
Eventually, yes, but until it happens, bodies are piling up.
EDIT: Also, FWIW, the truth is often exposed nearly immediately, yet for some people, once they have chosen to believe the lie, they can't be convinced of the truth.
If all you believe are lies, what's the difference?
It's well established that adults who read incorrect information frequently don't find out it was wrong and become more skeptical of the source. Some people operate that way, but it's a small minority unfortunately.
In particular, it's been shown that people with dogmatic beliefs strengthen those beliefs when shown evidence to the contrary rather than questioning them.
In particular, it's been shown that people with dogmatic beliefs strengthen those beliefs when shown evidence to the contrary rather than questioning them.
> Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information?
Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
And I imagine the owners of Comet Ping Pong would have greatly preferred that adults didn't read lies about Hillary running a child sex ring in their basement. [0]
Haitian immigrants in Ohio certainly weren't fans of Trump claiming that they're kidnapping and eating pets.
Speech has consequences.
> Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source.
...have you been living in a cave for the last 10 years? I just can't fathom how someone can be so naive to actually think this.
If there was any truth to this, Infowars would have been damn near been dead on arrival. Fox News would have been bankrupt before Obama even began his second term.
Or maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse and operating under the assumption that people will accept when they're wrong.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
And I imagine the owners of Comet Ping Pong would have greatly preferred that adults didn't read lies about Hillary running a child sex ring in their basement. [0]
Haitian immigrants in Ohio certainly weren't fans of Trump claiming that they're kidnapping and eating pets.
Speech has consequences.
> Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source.
...have you been living in a cave for the last 10 years? I just can't fathom how someone can be so naive to actually think this.
If there was any truth to this, Infowars would have been damn near been dead on arrival. Fox News would have been bankrupt before Obama even began his second term.
Or maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse and operating under the assumption that people will accept when they're wrong.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
Sorry but I'm not willing to live in an insane orwellian world just so your grandma gets her vaccine. It's her family's responsiblity to convince her and if she still refuses shes an adult she has the right to refuse treatment and vaccines.
As for libel, it has always existed and always will. There are laws against it to protect people if they suffer any damage from it. It's not without consequences.
What you're proposing is so much worse. Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose. How will you protect yourself from the goverment's false accusations?
As for libel, it has always existed and always will. There are laws against it to protect people if they suffer any damage from it. It's not without consequences.
What you're proposing is so much worse. Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose. How will you protect yourself from the goverment's false accusations?
> Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose
You're straw-manning. I never proposed anything like government enforcement against misinformation.
I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.
Who gets to decide what is misinformation is an entirely different issue. But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation. Again, set aside the question of "Well, who decides what is misinformation?" and consider just the mere concept of it.
You're straw-manning. I never proposed anything like government enforcement against misinformation.
I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.
Who gets to decide what is misinformation is an entirely different issue. But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation. Again, set aside the question of "Well, who decides what is misinformation?" and consider just the mere concept of it.
> You're straw-manning. I never proposed anything like government enforcement against misinformation.
Tyranny is the only alternative to free speech. I just don't see it ending in any other way.
> I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.
Awesome! Then we can stop making such a big deal out of misinformation and protect free speech.
> But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation.
Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.
Tyranny is the only alternative to free speech. I just don't see it ending in any other way.
> I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.
Awesome! Then we can stop making such a big deal out of misinformation and protect free speech.
> But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation.
Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.
Tyrany is orthogonal to free speech. You can absolutely abuse free speech to enact tyranny -- hell just look at Weimar era Germany.
Absolutist free speech would allow you to publicly plot the assassination of whomever you wanted to, or permit insider trading, etc.
Speech is a tool. It's utility and morality depends on the weilder of it.
Absolutist free speech would allow you to publicly plot the assassination of whomever you wanted to, or permit insider trading, etc.
Speech is a tool. It's utility and morality depends on the weilder of it.
> Then we can stop making such a big deal out of misinformation and protect free speech.
As long as misinformation is costing people's lives, I will make a big deal out of it.
I recognize that I am raising a stink about a problem without proposing a solution.
> Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.
It took us way too long to realize that we agree.
As long as misinformation is costing people's lives, I will make a big deal out of it.
I recognize that I am raising a stink about a problem without proposing a solution.
> Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.
It took us way too long to realize that we agree.
> Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
So the misinformation didn't affect your decision making. Instead, the misinformation you were exposed to was corrected by your exposure to more, better information.
So the misinformation didn't affect your decision making. Instead, the misinformation you were exposed to was corrected by your exposure to more, better information.
Yes, but that correction doesn't reach everyone. Again thus, "speech has consequences"
Those are all valid disadvantages of community notes, and free speech in general.
How do you explain that there are smart people who have known about these very disadvantages for many years, and still respond positively to "the solution to misinformation is more/better information"?
I don't suppose you know of a solution (to a problem that I admit I haven't fully specified) that has no disadvantages. The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening.
How do you explain that there are smart people who have known about these very disadvantages for many years, and still respond positively to "the solution to misinformation is more/better information"?
I don't suppose you know of a solution (to a problem that I admit I haven't fully specified) that has no disadvantages. The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening.
> How do you explain that there are smart people who [..] respond positively to "the solution to misinformation is more/better information"
Someone can be intelligent and still have misplaced hope for humanity to the point where I would consider them to be outright naive.
All it took was an hour or two on social media back in 2020/21. You could easily find someone who insisted that Ivermectin cured COVID, point out tons of studies showing that it's worthless against COVID, and yet they would reject all those studies as lies.
> I don't suppose you know of a solution
Nope. :-(
Kids are taught the scientific method, but that doesn't seem to be enough. They learn enough to pass a test and then forget about it all.
> The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening.
Agreed, though be careful to not read words that aren't there. Elsewhere in this thread, someone accused me of being in favor of government enforcement against free speech despite me saying nothing of the sort. Arguments that misinformation is bad is not an argument that it should be legally enforced!
In other words, yes, some leftists believe that misinformation should be illegal, but not everyone arguing that misinformation is bad is arguing that it should be illegal.
Someone can be intelligent and still have misplaced hope for humanity to the point where I would consider them to be outright naive.
All it took was an hour or two on social media back in 2020/21. You could easily find someone who insisted that Ivermectin cured COVID, point out tons of studies showing that it's worthless against COVID, and yet they would reject all those studies as lies.
> I don't suppose you know of a solution
Nope. :-(
Kids are taught the scientific method, but that doesn't seem to be enough. They learn enough to pass a test and then forget about it all.
> The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening.
Agreed, though be careful to not read words that aren't there. Elsewhere in this thread, someone accused me of being in favor of government enforcement against free speech despite me saying nothing of the sort. Arguments that misinformation is bad is not an argument that it should be legally enforced!
In other words, yes, some leftists believe that misinformation should be illegal, but not everyone arguing that misinformation is bad is arguing that it should be illegal.
I'm looking back with how much teenage edgelord/ironic/sarcastic speech that was rampant in my youth covered for people who actually held horrible views like white nationalism. I thought it was all just shock humor. I know better now, but I'm worried about that persisting in kids. I think it's always been that way. I don't know how to mitigate it.
Community notes isn’t scalable.
So when you have people like Musk constantly posting by the time a note is added the value of it has long since diminished.
Also your left/right wing argument is entirely something you’ve invented.
So when you have people like Musk constantly posting by the time a note is added the value of it has long since diminished.
Also your left/right wing argument is entirely something you’ve invented.
I agree with the first part totally, and you're probably right I invented something there. I only meant that free speech / "more information helps" seems to resonate with the right, and censorship seems to resonate with the left. Not so?
Censorship of books seem to resonate well with the right.
And rewriting books resonates with the left. Is this a game of left/right tennis I've walked into?
Depends what you mean in regards to rewriting. If there's a position that runs counter to our current scientific consensus, I think it should be updated to reflect the current consensus, but when I was reading my history/physics books they would cover what people believed at a particular time period. I don't see any issue with that. We're always learning more about the world around us. We are not an omniscient species.
Unless there's a more specific example you can think of w.r.t rewriting.
Unless there's a more specific example you can think of w.r.t rewriting.
Sounds like you haven't heard of the re-writing of books in the interest of over-enthusiastic DEI. There's non-fiction and fiction examples. Salman Rushdie described it as "absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed" [1].
Apparently children's books can't use the word "black" or "white" any more. And in the children's book "Witches", a witch posing as “a cashier in a supermarket” now poses as “a top scientist”. It's blunt-force rewriting by patronising leftists. Witches are not meant to be role models for little girls. It doesn’t matter where they work.
[1] https://x.com/SalmanRushdie/status/1627075835525210113
Apparently children's books can't use the word "black" or "white" any more. And in the children's book "Witches", a witch posing as “a cashier in a supermarket” now poses as “a top scientist”. It's blunt-force rewriting by patronising leftists. Witches are not meant to be role models for little girls. It doesn’t matter where they work.
[1] https://x.com/SalmanRushdie/status/1627075835525210113
Neither the left nor right are monolithic enough to make those generalizations. The anti-communism suppression of the McCarthy era is a counter-example of that resonance & plenty of left wing examples of the exact idea of "more speech is what is needed to extinguish bad ideas." Those are counter examples to demonstrate it is not a monolithic group in neither time nor space.
> "Community notes isn’t scalable."
Of course it's scalable. Community notes are written by people, so increasing the amount of people writing notes means it's scalable. Users find the added context helpful, so more notes are rated by more people more often. That's the definition of scale.
> the value of it has long since diminished.
No. The note remains forever on the tweet. There is no "diminishing". Anyone who has interacted with that post in the past is notified about the note. Our own Prime Minister here in Australia has had a few of his posts community noted. Politicians love to make bold claims about how awesome they are. They are note magnets. It's not a perfect system, but it's a good system.
Of course it's scalable. Community notes are written by people, so increasing the amount of people writing notes means it's scalable. Users find the added context helpful, so more notes are rated by more people more often. That's the definition of scale.
> the value of it has long since diminished.
No. The note remains forever on the tweet. There is no "diminishing". Anyone who has interacted with that post in the past is notified about the note. Our own Prime Minister here in Australia has had a few of his posts community noted. Politicians love to make bold claims about how awesome they are. They are note magnets. It's not a perfect system, but it's a good system.
> Anyone who has interacted with that post in the past is notified about the note.
Having read or seen a post seems to be the most important part. That is not defined as part of "interacted". AFAIK, most X posts are viewed once and then never viewed again. It is a tiny fraction that actually "interacts" with a post. Hence, the value is diminished since the majority of people that read a post are never informed of the community note.
Per X: "Community Notes sends notifications to everyone who has replied to, Liked or reposted a post after a note starts showing on it." [1]
[1] https://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/contributing/notificat...
Having read or seen a post seems to be the most important part. That is not defined as part of "interacted". AFAIK, most X posts are viewed once and then never viewed again. It is a tiny fraction that actually "interacts" with a post. Hence, the value is diminished since the majority of people that read a post are never informed of the community note.
Per X: "Community Notes sends notifications to everyone who has replied to, Liked or reposted a post after a note starts showing on it." [1]
[1] https://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/contributing/notificat...
> It is a tiny fraction that actually "interacts" with a post...Hence, the value is diminished
Are you claiming we're in "information danger" because community notes isn't there to watch people post things in real time? Exactly how much of a pre-school do you want the internet to be? Do you want a school teacher looking over your shoulder as you type?
As you should know, interaction with a post by liking or replying, means the post had the most impression on that reader. The people you're worried about who don't interact, you have zero data on. You don't know whether they disagreed with the post, disbelieved or otherwise unaffected by the post. In fact, we do have some data. The post made such little impression that they didn't bother liking or replying.
People are not damaged goods after reading an untrue post online. The internet contains endless examples of disputed information, corrected only after the first post is read. For example, right here on HN. This place historically contains the following pattern:
Are you claiming we're in "information danger" because community notes isn't there to watch people post things in real time? Exactly how much of a pre-school do you want the internet to be? Do you want a school teacher looking over your shoulder as you type?
As you should know, interaction with a post by liking or replying, means the post had the most impression on that reader. The people you're worried about who don't interact, you have zero data on. You don't know whether they disagreed with the post, disbelieved or otherwise unaffected by the post. In fact, we do have some data. The post made such little impression that they didn't bother liking or replying.
People are not damaged goods after reading an untrue post online. The internet contains endless examples of disputed information, corrected only after the first post is read. For example, right here on HN. This place historically contains the following pattern:
"I think X should Y because Z"
Later that day or week, someone counters:
"actually, you haven't considered A or B in your reasoning of Z, which points to Y being inadequate".
The reason it's increasingly an "echo chamber" is because liberals are so offended by actual free speech that they stopped posting there. To blame conservatives for this development is illogical.
It really hasn’t.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394
there are both in-depth studies and anecdotal evidence that suggest hate speech has been growing under Mr Musk's tenure.
Data Shows X Is Suspending Far Fewer Users for Hate Speech
My experience disagrees with yours, I suppose.
To me, as a casual user of the platform, that has been the trend. I've been visiting less because of it.
To me, as a casual user of the platform, that has been the trend. I've been visiting less because of it.
> Twitter/X
Why not call it one or the other?
Why not call it one or the other?
Call it Twitter. Everyone knows what you mean, and it annoys Elon.
I'm not even your average Elon hater, and I still think X is a stupid name. Dude should've just kept the name and brand that everyone knows already.
Elon just likes X. I feel he bought the entire site in part due to ego. And it was part of the "everything app" branding too IIRC.
old good ole Twitter was when your feed was only those you followed.
new X is when your feed what Elon wants you to see and react to.
new X is when your feed what Elon wants you to see and react to.
Twitter stopped doing the "follower feed" thing for years before Elon bought the website. The propaganda has gotten much worse, but let's not pretend Twitter wasn't widely considered the worst website on the face of the planet (except Facebook) even before Elon took over
1. I think the main thing is that Elon's own tweets are almost always make it to global broadcast via For You feed.
2. This effectively makes everyone see whatever Musk personally likes/retweets
3. It is soft of correct that there is more freedom of speech due to slashing/nonexistent moderation
4. But because algo promotes whatever Musk retweets, it makes Musk chief in charge of the algorithm. Whatever Musk likes - will be shown to everyone.
5. Because the rest of the feed is noise and garbage, this effectively makes Musk inject a strong signal to a feed and makes him a moderator. If censors previously would censor by deleting posts, he censors by throwing garbage and noisy posts and sprinkling signal in a few places
2. This effectively makes everyone see whatever Musk personally likes/retweets
3. It is soft of correct that there is more freedom of speech due to slashing/nonexistent moderation
4. But because algo promotes whatever Musk retweets, it makes Musk chief in charge of the algorithm. Whatever Musk likes - will be shown to everyone.
5. Because the rest of the feed is noise and garbage, this effectively makes Musk inject a strong signal to a feed and makes him a moderator. If censors previously would censor by deleting posts, he censors by throwing garbage and noisy posts and sprinkling signal in a few places
You can block him and that doesn't happen. The main problem is the algorithm is wildly oversensitive and will show you 100 of any one thing you linger on for too long.
Same thing happens with competitors though. That's all Threads is. I enabled Bluesky's occasional algorithm posts in the following feed and it will not stop trying to show me hardcore gay porn I very much didn't ask for.
Same thing happens with competitors though. That's all Threads is. I enabled Bluesky's occasional algorithm posts in the following feed and it will not stop trying to show me hardcore gay porn I very much didn't ask for.
> the worst website on the face of the planet (except Facebook)
Very much except FB.
I see more hate content on FB (which i have to use because of other people) than I do on Twitter on the rare occasions I look at it.
Very much except FB.
I see more hate content on FB (which i have to use because of other people) than I do on Twitter on the rare occasions I look at it.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Bluesky behaves like the Twitter of yore where you see only who you follow.
This is misleading.
At the top of the feed, there are two tabs: "For you" and "Following". If you select "Following", then you only see people you follow.
At the top of the feed, there are two tabs: "For you" and "Following". If you select "Following", then you only see people you follow.
but you don't see _all_ from the people you follow in "following", some end up in "for you". So if you want to see stuff from people you follow you need to look at the rage-bait from the algorithmic feed.
Ever since they introduced that, it tries hard to switch you back to for you and has never let you stay away from it permanently.
I never used Twitter but I left Facebook for exactly that reason. I just want to keep up with my friends. I don't want to constantly see whatever narrative some corporate media entity is pushing.
a lot of people use the For You feed by default, since Titter makes it very inconvenient to use Following:
- cannot disable/hide For you
- always default for you, and no way to default to FollowingOr "Twitter, the site desperately trying to be know as X".
My favorite so far is: “The platform [Elon Musk] wants you to call “X” for his own sexual gratification”. It’s admittedly too wordy though.
https://www.cahsuesmusk.com/
https://www.cahsuesmusk.com/
I heard that deadnaming is uncool.
I think the product should be called Twitter and the company called X. Sort of like Facebook/Meta. Which is what Musk should have done from the beginning, but we can fix it for him.
Call it X. Everyone knows what you mean and it really stirs shit up with people who are emotionally attached to the old brand name.
> Call it X. Everyone knows what you mean
When I see "X", I think X Window System.
I saw your comment and thought, "I bet this guy is a Windows user." I was right! LOL.
https://hn.algolia.com/?type=comment&sort=byDate&query=autho...
When I see "X", I think X Window System.
I saw your comment and thought, "I bet this guy is a Windows user." I was right! LOL.
https://hn.algolia.com/?type=comment&sort=byDate&query=autho...
Congrats on your keen insights.
Use both and get everybody!
I like "Xitter" because it's pronounced the way it is
I believe Xitter (pronounced 'shitter') is the preferred satirical term, and one that many deem to be an accurate portrayal of the sites user experience since it was taken over by Mr Musk.
Xitter is my favorite!
I like Xitter too. Also "the dead bird site" which occurs quite a lot on Mastodon
I like Birdchan
Maximum clarity
I guess this is about the domain name infowars.com which belongs to a bankrupt company.
Alex Jones is such a big name and has other channels (x.com, Joe Rogan etc.) that he can easily build a similar site/business under a new domain name.
Perhaps The Onion should ask - who gets most promotion of this?
Alex Jones is such a big name and has other channels (x.com, Joe Rogan etc.) that he can easily build a similar site/business under a new domain name.
Perhaps The Onion should ask - who gets most promotion of this?
The auction included all of the InfoWars and several associated corporations' assets, including the studio and the supplements business. At one point the settlement administrator was trying to get Alex's Twitter handle.
I believe he's been doing some half-ass scheming to create essentially the same company but in his parents' name, and I doubt he has a problem getting listeners back.
I believe he's been doing some half-ass scheming to create essentially the same company but in his parents' name, and I doubt he has a problem getting listeners back.
... Infowars had a supplements business?
From the statement -
| As for the vitamins and supplements, we are halting their sale immediately. Utilitarian logic dictates that if we can extend even one CEO’s life by 10 minutes, diluting these miracle elixirs for public consumption is an unethical waste. Instead, we plan to collect the entire stock of the InfoWars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents down into a single candy bar–sized omnivitamin that one executive (I will not name names) may eat in order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal.
| As for the vitamins and supplements, we are halting their sale immediately. Utilitarian logic dictates that if we can extend even one CEO’s life by 10 minutes, diluting these miracle elixirs for public consumption is an unethical waste. Instead, we plan to collect the entire stock of the InfoWars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents down into a single candy bar–sized omnivitamin that one executive (I will not name names) may eat in order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal.
On the internet, telling people what they want to hear will always attract an audience. If the audience is larger than a thousand or so people, then you can make money by leveraging your audience's trust in you to sell them supplements, cash for gold schemes, boxed mattresses, meal delivery kits, or VPNs.
Some people wonder what the point is of flat-earthers arguing with everyone about their "alternative science". The answer is so they can identify the fools who they can scam with their various schemes...
Most flat earthers are just trolls who are baiting people who can't help but bite when somebody is wrong on the internet.
nfts, crypto, low poly trucks etc.
InfoWars was a supplements business. The political stuff was just a funnel to sell the supplements, where the real money was made.
The ads on some information-channels carry a lot of information about the audience, and so, about the channel.
Some are dominated by reverse mortgages, supplements, buy-gold ads, Franklin “mint”, and, if online, crypto scams.
This happens to be a convenient way to quickly tell when you’re headed deep into a particular part of Bullshit Country.
[edit] point is I find it unsurprising they had a supplement business. It’s probably the easiest of the above to break into.
Some are dominated by reverse mortgages, supplements, buy-gold ads, Franklin “mint”, and, if online, crypto scams.
This happens to be a convenient way to quickly tell when you’re headed deep into a particular part of Bullshit Country.
[edit] point is I find it unsurprising they had a supplement business. It’s probably the easiest of the above to break into.
Its how they made most of their money.
Infowars is basically only a vehicle to sell supplements and other various crap.
Not dissimilar to Fox News or any other media company where the main purpose of the content is to get people to stay for the ads. Turns out rage-baiting works extremely well for driving engagement among certain groups.
The trick that Jones has perfected is the ad pivot. When you watch most media, the line between content and ad is generally pretty clear. With jones, it was often very blurry. Like, he does do regular ads, but he'll also be ranting about globalists for 10 minutes and then drop in something like "They want to destroy your mind which is why you need our deep earth iodine crystals and sea algae which is proven to stop globalist mind control."
He does it pretty much out of habit. He literally did an ad pivot while on the stand in his court cases.
He does it pretty much out of habit. He literally did an ad pivot while on the stand in his court cases.
The literal only way the Onion could mock this man was with… reality.
Fox news is pushing an agenda first and foremost. The ad money was just a bonus. Rupert Murdoch didn't need the ad money. Just like with Sky News he was more interested in the "reasons of prestige and politics for keeping it" than the profits.
That allegedly had elevated levels of lead.
Which, you know what, tracks.
Which, you know what, tracks.
Oh man, you're in for a treat. Look up some videos on youtube, the classic being John Oliver's 2017 piece; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyGq6cjcc3Q . He's adjacent to the newly mainstream right, yes, but he's been around for a long time as a more radical+fringe actor, and has all the baggage that goes along with that. A good portion (most?) of his money was made from selling vaguely anti-GMO and pro-masculinity products sold with a heavy dose of "big pharma doesn't want you to know this one trick".
They ranged from insane horse bone dust stuff to plain overpriced vitamins; https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-a...
They ranged from insane horse bone dust stuff to plain overpriced vitamins; https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-a...
And the Knowledge Fight podcast if you really, really wanna get into it. Almost 1000 episodes now. https://knowledgefight.com
Behind the bastards also has a few that are good summaries if you want something shorter, with the Knowledge Fight guys as guests.
Behind the bastards also has a few that are good summaries if you want something shorter, with the Knowledge Fight guys as guests.
Whatever episode they're making right now is going to be great.
Most of these things are DTC operations and usually for supplements since they are relatively unregulated. Turning viewership into money is usually done through ads but these guys are fairly toxic to most advertisers.
Supplements are a good alternative for podcasters. They’re like merch is for musicians etc. but usually run as a recurring revenue stream.
Scratch the surface of any of these people and you’ll find they are like this: huberman, Bryan Johnson, they’ll all have a DTC business.
Supplements are a good alternative for podcasters. They’re like merch is for musicians etc. but usually run as a recurring revenue stream.
Scratch the surface of any of these people and you’ll find they are like this: huberman, Bryan Johnson, they’ll all have a DTC business.
There is a reason the archetypal scam artist is referred to as a ‘snake oil salesman’.
Infowars basically was a supplements business. Sold a load of soy based products while ranting about soy
Infowars is a supplements business. It’s grifts all the way down.
Anyone ever wonder why there are very few far-right comedians?
What do you mean, is Washington DC not a comedy circuit? /jk
It's because they all identify as comedians.
(Yes, this is the one rightwing joke).
(Yes, this is the one rightwing joke).
You need to be self-reflective enough to laugh at your own BS. Monomaniacs spouting out their grievances don't make for the best laughs.
Because their idea of comedy is something like: "foreigners, am I right?" *shaking head
Hey, come on, carrying a sink and saying "Let that sink in" is god damn hilarious...
/s
/s
I didn't know that either. That's absolutely hilarious! This could be straight out of a South Park episode.
Infowars was a supplements business. their business model was to brainwash people with conspiracy theories and sell supplements that solve the problems they made up
>... Infowars had a supplements business?
Yeah check out an advert for CAVEMAN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-ZqD9-W1_8 . I used to like Infowars 10+ years ago (I'm from New Zealand) when the site was a news aggregate site so you could read the sources. Now that it is him just talking I don't visit the site that often. I remember walking around in a small township in Norway (just under 10,000 people) and seeing a Infowars sticker on a road light. So yeah he used to have massive reach, I don't know if he still does.
Perhaps The Onion should ask - who gets most promotion of this?
Well, we’re all talking about the onion. And I, personally, haven’t read onion content in a long, long while. So this kind of put them back on the radar for me.
But I could be one of only a few people who fell out of onion readership?
More likely is that they believe the next four years will provide them a lot of comedy fodder and they’re setting their pieces early. For them the election is likely to be pretty good for business.
Well, we’re all talking about the onion. And I, personally, haven’t read onion content in a long, long while. So this kind of put them back on the radar for me.
But I could be one of only a few people who fell out of onion readership?
More likely is that they believe the next four years will provide them a lot of comedy fodder and they’re setting their pieces early. For them the election is likely to be pretty good for business.
>I, personally, haven’t read onion content in a long, long while
The onion was kind of dead for a while under various shitty owners, but was bought this year by Jeff Lawson of Twilio and is now being run by former NBC reporter Ben Collins. The new stuff since the acquisition has been a bit hit or miss, but at least they're trying again.
The onion was kind of dead for a while under various shitty owners, but was bought this year by Jeff Lawson of Twilio and is now being run by former NBC reporter Ben Collins. The new stuff since the acquisition has been a bit hit or miss, but at least they're trying again.
They have posted great news segment videos again
I miss the autistic reporter. That guy was my favorite.
While their stuff is brilliant at times, I don't actively seek it out because it leaves me pretty depressed and anxious. The parodies are almost indistinguishable from real events these days.
Alas, "Onion Now: Focus" https://youtu.be/Bex5LyzbbBE
Yep, that's my feeling everyday. I would have liked to have seen Patrick Warburton cast in that role, though. For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaghIdSJKvQ
I even felt that way reading The Onion's article about this and then listening to Alex Jones' rant on Xitter. They sounded like they came from the same writer.
They have become the embodiment of Poe's Law (or the world is such a hellscape that Poe's Law is just taken for granted now?)
I think it's all the assets of the website.
I believe that the current state of play is that Jones has to pay $1.1bn damages even post bankruptcy so maybe any future successes will lead to money for the Sandyhook families. I certainly hope so.
Ironically he may live longer to earn more for them - he'll never be able to afford a cigar again.
I believe that the current state of play is that Jones has to pay $1.1bn damages even post bankruptcy so maybe any future successes will lead to money for the Sandyhook families. I certainly hope so.
Ironically he may live longer to earn more for them - he'll never be able to afford a cigar again.
Wait am I understanding this right?
- Collins buys InfoWars
- Auction money ends up going to SH victims
- SH victims have an anti-gun organization set up
- This org enters into a long term ad deal with Collins
- Some of the money therefore flows back to Collins, effectively helping with the auction buy
- Collins buys InfoWars
- Auction money ends up going to SH victims
- SH victims have an anti-gun organization set up
- This org enters into a long term ad deal with Collins
- Some of the money therefore flows back to Collins, effectively helping with the auction buy
That's what I guessed from the story - I suppose that there would be a lot of reticence about buying this site from a lot of corporate actors, but maybe there are a lot of crazy people who could have bought it if the price was right. So, this way it is for sure a "dead" property.
> Perhaps The Onion should ask - who gets most promotion of this?
I think the idea is the US’ terrible gun situation
I think the idea is the US’ terrible gun situation
Hmm NBC seems to imply that they purchased "Free Speech Systems", which is the parent company for the entire operation. Of course, who knows what they'll actually get other than the domain and copyrights -- Jones will just move all the physical assets into a storage unit/another office and dare them to complain, Guliani-style. Also, who knows if any of these stands for long, anyway; the cases are in state court (Connecticut and Texas) but what's stopping the president from issuing an executive order clearing them? Laws?
Re: "who gets the most promotion", IDK I think it's definitely the new owner of the Onion. Personally speaking, I think we're past the "don't give them attention" stage of fascism, and "they were bought by a satire company" isn't exactly a better rallying cry than Jones has already been spouting during the entire litigation. Plus, I trust them;
Re: "who gets the most promotion", IDK I think it's definitely the new owner of the Onion. Personally speaking, I think we're past the "don't give them attention" stage of fascism, and "they were bought by a satire company" isn't exactly a better rallying cry than Jones has already been spouting during the entire litigation. Plus, I trust them;
The anti-violence organization Everytown for Gun Safety said it will be the exclusive advertiser in The Onion’s new venture as part of a multiyear agreement. John Feinblatt, the group’s president, said in a statement that he hopes to “reach new audiences ready to hold the gun industry accountable for contributing to our nation’s gun violence epidemic.”
> Alex Jones is such a big name and has other channels (x.com, Joe Rogan etc.) that he can easily build a similar site/business under a new domain name.
Maybe but the judgement was for 1B USD. So any profits would probably be garnished away.
Basically, lawfare was used to censor Alex Jones. I wonder if this is a case for the Supreme Court and First Amendment rights?
Maybe but the judgement was for 1B USD. So any profits would probably be garnished away.
Basically, lawfare was used to censor Alex Jones. I wonder if this is a case for the Supreme Court and First Amendment rights?
Lawfare? This is literally how defamation works.
If someone said on the Internet said that rs999gti was a "tax-evading, pyramid-scheming, mullet-wearing, karaoke-ruining, ferret-hoarding, snake-oil-selling, cereal-with-water-eating, grammar-mangling, table-manner-less, engagement-ring-pawning, salad-dodging, traffic-cone-stealing, apology-dodger," and it wasn’t true, I think you’d probably like to sue them and take their money too.
If someone said on the Internet said that rs999gti was a "tax-evading, pyramid-scheming, mullet-wearing, karaoke-ruining, ferret-hoarding, snake-oil-selling, cereal-with-water-eating, grammar-mangling, table-manner-less, engagement-ring-pawning, salad-dodging, traffic-cone-stealing, apology-dodger," and it wasn’t true, I think you’d probably like to sue them and take their money too.
> Lawfare?
Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech, NOTE: I did not say free speech. What he did is reprehensible but not enough that he is basically black balled from making a living. Penalties yes, loss of livelihood no.
Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech, NOTE: I did not say free speech. What he did is reprehensible but not enough that he is basically black balled from making a living. Penalties yes, loss of livelihood no.
Having your wages garnished doesn't mean you starve to death. He's perfectly capable of making a living, supporting himself and his dependents, if any, but his ability to build wealth will be restricted. I don't know the particulars of this case, but generally:
"The garnishment amount is limited to 25% of your disposable earnings for that week (what's left after mandatory deductions) or the amount by which your disposable earnings for that week exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage, whichever is less."
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/if-wages-are-garnish...
"The garnishment amount is limited to 25% of your disposable earnings for that week (what's left after mandatory deductions) or the amount by which your disposable earnings for that week exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage, whichever is less."
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/if-wages-are-garnish...
$1B is the amount it took to get him to stop. He could have stopped earlier, and had ample opportunity, but that was apparently his price.
> Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech
He was harassing parents of dead children in order to personally enrich himself. Why do you think he shouldn't have to forgo his ill begotten gains? It's only 1B USD, because he refused to stop doing it. And then he decided not to really show up for court and accept the summary judgement of 1B USD.
Most of his penalty has nothing to do with speech. He can keep on speaking all he wants. He might suffer consequences, but he is free to say whatever he wants to.
He was harassing parents of dead children in order to personally enrich himself. Why do you think he shouldn't have to forgo his ill begotten gains? It's only 1B USD, because he refused to stop doing it. And then he decided not to really show up for court and accept the summary judgement of 1B USD.
Most of his penalty has nothing to do with speech. He can keep on speaking all he wants. He might suffer consequences, but he is free to say whatever he wants to.
The judgment was not for an off-the-cuff remark or writing a few paragraphs online. He ran a smear campaign against people whose kids were shot, for almost a decade, even though he knew what he was saying was untrue. Jones's "speech" had severe real-world consequences for his targets, and there's no reason to assume he has repented. It would be no injustice if he was never allowed near a microphone again.
Alex is free to work at the local car wash.
"Lawfare" is when people break the law and are actually prosecuted for it even though they are rich and right wing and think they laws don't apply to them.
Alex Jones wasn't even subtle about it. He was getting judgements telling him to stop spouting blatant lies about victims of a mass shooting and he just doubled down on the lies. Repeatedly. The courts kept giving him more rope and he kept tying more nooses.
Alex Jones wasn't even subtle about it. He was getting judgements telling him to stop spouting blatant lies about victims of a mass shooting and he just doubled down on the lies. Repeatedly. The courts kept giving him more rope and he kept tying more nooses.
Was it? The constitution lays out slander and libel as types of speech that can be censored. The trashy Jones then knowingly and maliciously lied about people for profit - aka libel and slander. Seems reasonable to take the money he made as well as punitive damages.
How is censorship?
How is censorship?
The constitution lays out slander and libel as types of speech that can be censored
I don't think defamation law is unconstitutional, but, no it doesn't.
I don't think defamation law is unconstitutional, but, no it doesn't.
> How is censorship?
How does he make future money, you know for living?
The judgement basically means the courts get to garnish his wages until the judgement is paid.
Jones is a goof to me and I like seeing him rant and rave and wear foil hats. But I don't think anyone should have their livelihood taken from them by censorship of the courts. EDIT: remember all judgments and penalties cut both ways. Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media.
Lower the judgement to 1M USD (EDIT: or something reasonable) and let's move on.
How does he make future money, you know for living?
The judgement basically means the courts get to garnish his wages until the judgement is paid.
Jones is a goof to me and I like seeing him rant and rave and wear foil hats. But I don't think anyone should have their livelihood taken from them by censorship of the courts. EDIT: remember all judgments and penalties cut both ways. Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media.
Lower the judgement to 1M USD (EDIT: or something reasonable) and let's move on.
> Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media
Anyone who knowingly spreads lies about a person and causes them harm should face legal consequences.
Anyone who knowingly spreads lies about a person and causes them harm should face legal consequences.
Not sure how it works in the US, but e.g. in germany only a certain portion of your wages go towards debts, they let you have a certain portion for yourself since you need it to live.
His livelihood wasn't taken. His assets were taken because he did damages and has to pay for those damages.
He can go get all sorts of jobs. Yeah his wages will be garnished, but that doesn't mean his whole paycheck - just the lesser of 25% of the paycheck or 30x minimum wage. He can make money and a living with that just fine. Same as I'd expect for anyone intentionally lying and hurting people for money - whether I "follow" them or not.
Perhaps you should find some reputable sources for information, instead of relying on the proven liar to tell the truth about his situation?
He can go get all sorts of jobs. Yeah his wages will be garnished, but that doesn't mean his whole paycheck - just the lesser of 25% of the paycheck or 30x minimum wage. He can make money and a living with that just fine. Same as I'd expect for anyone intentionally lying and hurting people for money - whether I "follow" them or not.
Perhaps you should find some reputable sources for information, instead of relying on the proven liar to tell the truth about his situation?
rs999gti(2)
> Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media.
Christ. As a non-American, this comment says a lot about the hilariously broken state of your political landscape.
“It could happen to one of your guys, and that somehow makes it bad!”
Anyone that does what Alex did deserves his punishment, and I’d be against anyone that did what he did, even if I previously “followed” them.
Christ. As a non-American, this comment says a lot about the hilariously broken state of your political landscape.
“It could happen to one of your guys, and that somehow makes it bad!”
Anyone that does what Alex did deserves his punishment, and I’d be against anyone that did what he did, even if I previously “followed” them.
Wow, crazy to watch all the bootlickers and nutters in his feed who are angry about this.
They're all "verified" (paid) accounts too, which is why Twitter is such a cesspool. They sort paid accounts to the top.
Freemium speech?
right, I was reading their comments, I cannot believe it. But hey, if you view the world like that, guys like Alex will always prosper and have a crowd.
I like how he still tries to sell his merchandise until the very last moment.
He has for some time been telling his listeners to buy supplements from a new company set up in his father's name that is a thin cutout for the one ostensibly run by himself. It seems likely a good lawyer could pierce that corporate veil and go after the new company, but I don't know if that has happened.
> It seems likely a good lawyer could pierce that corporate veil and go after the new company, but I don't know if that has happened.
He's spent the whole time since losing the lawsuit illegally shifting assets to his parents and they bankruptcy courts haven't seemed to be able to stop that.
He's spent the whole time since losing the lawsuit illegally shifting assets to his parents and they bankruptcy courts haven't seemed to be able to stop that.
For what it's worth, a lawyer _did_ ask the presiding Judge Christopher Lopez to tell Alex Jones he definitely can't do that and solidify this in writing the terms of bankruptcy, and the judge simply refused to even try on the basis that everyone involved is an adult and ought to know better.
It’s standard practice to let somebody else own your things when you are in a position that don’t allow you to have something. It’s not provable easily and if it’s justice to charge him 1.4B for talking some shit it’s also justice to use the loopholes of the system.
That and the defiance, conspiracies, deep state, freedom-fighter verbal diarrhea until the bitter end. You almost get the feeling that he actually believes it all.
I'm hoping that Department Head Rawlings and Jim Anchower will return as contributors. When did T. Herman Zweibel pass the reins to Bryce P. Tetraeder?
This has been halted due a judge deciding it was a private sale masquerading as an auction: https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1857290045536780334
Is there a credible source on this?
https://apnews.com/article/onion-buys-infowars-alex-jones-64...
"Walter Cicack, an attorney for First United American Companies, told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez that Murray changed the auction process only days before, deciding not to hold a round Wednesday where parties could outbid each other. Sealed bids were submitted last week, and the trustee chose only from those, Cicack said."
"“We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened,” he said. “No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”
An exact date of next week’s hearing was not immediately set.
After the hearing, Jones said on his show that he thought the auction was unfairly rigged and expressed optimism that the judge would nullify the sale."
"Walter Cicack, an attorney for First United American Companies, told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez that Murray changed the auction process only days before, deciding not to hold a round Wednesday where parties could outbid each other. Sealed bids were submitted last week, and the trustee chose only from those, Cicack said."
"“We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened,” he said. “No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”
An exact date of next week’s hearing was not immediately set.
After the hearing, Jones said on his show that he thought the auction was unfairly rigged and expressed optimism that the judge would nullify the sale."
Sealed bids is a perfectly normal way to do auctions though.
Changing the bidding process days in advance and then accepting the lower bid (out of two) seems less normal though. I think it's obvious they're trying to stop Jones and his associates from simply buying back the business.
I'm not sure of the legal details but apparently the judge had misgivings about the procedure so here we are
I'm not sure of the legal details but apparently the judge had misgivings about the procedure so here we are
A trustee's responsibility is to creditors. While directing the disposition of assets, a trustee may judge that a secondary offer better serves the creditors.
In this case, the creditors are the Sandy Hook families who were wronged by Jones. It is my understanding that they had a hand in The Onion's offer. I suspect they signaled a desire for this sale to the trustee - but that is just a guess.
source:prepped personal bankruptcy cases for a couple of years
In this case, the creditors are the Sandy Hook families who were wronged by Jones. It is my understanding that they had a hand in The Onion's offer. I suspect they signaled a desire for this sale to the trustee - but that is just a guess.
source:prepped personal bankruptcy cases for a couple of years
Thanks. Something I wish the reporting would note is how common this kind of thing is. Is it normal, and do the results change often/ever with these reviews? Questions that would be good for an AP journalist to look into when they know what conspiracy-minded people watching a case like this will assume.
I can't fault a judge for wanting to make sure everything is copasetic with the kind of numbers and personalities involved.
I can't fault a judge for wanting to make sure everything is copasetic with the kind of numbers and personalities involved.
I don't want to link to paywalled sources, but yes, multiple outlets are reporting that the sale has been halted until next week to ensure that the process was fair.
Yeah, this one. Why?
That is the funniest thing I have read in a very long time.
Truly a great piece of satirical writing on The Onion. Just one example:
> With a shrewd mix of delusional paranoia and dubious anti-aging nutrition hacks, they strive to make life both scarier and longer for everyone, a commendable goal.
> With a shrewd mix of delusional paranoia and dubious anti-aging nutrition hacks, they strive to make life both scarier and longer for everyone, a commendable goal.
I like the twitter comments. They're already baking how it's part of the secret globalist plot.
See also https://reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/ if you haven't yet.
See also https://reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/ if you haven't yet.
[deleted]
I hope Mr. Tetraheder remembers to make any accounts permanent regardless of the wishes of the members - nothing like a permanent asset.
[deleted]
I saw the onion post and didnt really believe it.
How can Jones respond this way when families are backing that. Does this qualify as insanity or more like bottomless greed ?
"They are a true unicorn, capable of simultaneously inspiring public support for billionaires and stoking outrage at an inept federal state that can assassinate JFK but can’t even put a man on the Moon."
There was an emergency hearing to challenge the sale to the onion.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/not-funny-onion-buys-inf...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/not-funny-onion-buys-inf...
I’m cracking up
Founded in 1999 on the heels of the Satanic “panic” and growing steadily ever since, InfoWars has distinguished itself as an invaluable tool for brainwashing and controlling the masses. With a shrewd mix of delusional paranoia and dubious anti-aging nutrition hacks, they strive to make life both scarier and longer for everyone, a commendable goal. They are a true unicorn, capable of simultaneously inspiring public support for billionaires and stoking outrage at an inept federal state that can assassinate JFK but can’t even put a man on the Moon.
Perfect
Perfect
This is great!
Seems like the article is really gleeful. Somewhat ironic since The Onion could be brought down in the same way by defamation lawsuits.
> Somewhat ironic since The Onion could be brought down in the same way by defamation lawsuits.
Unlikely.
It's worth remembering that Jones was never actually tried for defamation. He instead received a default judgment. In the US, both sides of a civil case have the right to a fair and speedy trial. If there's delays, you had better have a good reason for them and they need to fit the rules of procedure.
Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, more-or-less refused to participate in the trial. The Knowledge Fight podcast has some episodes dealing with the discovery and deposition process for the suits, with actual deposition audio. I'm not a lawyer but it was absolutely brutal to listen to how ill-prepared Jones, his employees, and his representatives were. They were submitting Wikipedia articles about false flags as evidence, had a comprehensive background check on one of the parents that was in FSS records that no one could seem to explain the presence of, and generally didn't comply with other discovery requests.
The end result of this is that his life's work has been reduced to a satire and he is likely financially hobbled for the rest of his life.
For The Onion to have the same fate, they would have to basically disregard every single common-sense rule regarding what you should do when you're sued.
Unlikely.
It's worth remembering that Jones was never actually tried for defamation. He instead received a default judgment. In the US, both sides of a civil case have the right to a fair and speedy trial. If there's delays, you had better have a good reason for them and they need to fit the rules of procedure.
Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, more-or-less refused to participate in the trial. The Knowledge Fight podcast has some episodes dealing with the discovery and deposition process for the suits, with actual deposition audio. I'm not a lawyer but it was absolutely brutal to listen to how ill-prepared Jones, his employees, and his representatives were. They were submitting Wikipedia articles about false flags as evidence, had a comprehensive background check on one of the parents that was in FSS records that no one could seem to explain the presence of, and generally didn't comply with other discovery requests.
The end result of this is that his life's work has been reduced to a satire and he is likely financially hobbled for the rest of his life.
For The Onion to have the same fate, they would have to basically disregard every single common-sense rule regarding what you should do when you're sued.
Jones' lawyers at one point forwarded a full phone dump of Jones' phone by accident to opposing council. They of course notified Jones' lawyers immediately to ask if this was a mistake that they should delete/disregard, as was their right.
Jones' lawyers promptly ignored this, or didn't understand what was going on, resulting it becoming fair game after X days had passed.
This goody bag of text messages and pictures contradicted several points of Jones' defence regarding who he was communicating with and a bunch of incriminating evidence that wasn't produced during discovery.
That was my understanding of that episode, I may have misunderstood parts of it.
Oh, and they revealed this when Jones was on the stand, and it is available to view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC9RiRUF21A
Legal Eagle (among many others I suspect - that's just the channel I tend to follow for pop legal) did a breakdown of that clip explaining what was going on for the layperson: https://youtu.be/x-QcbOphxYs
I wonder if attorneys have any liability at all. Granted, lawyers do not provide any guarantees, and I usually tend to be more forgiving of genuine fuckups, but this seems a bit too much. The very least you expect from a hired lawyer is not to single-handedly destroy all your defense.
You can sue a lawyer for malpractice, same as a doctor. They even carry insurance for it.
[deleted]
Also worth remembering, the entire lawsuit wasn't about defamation.
There were several claims about things such as Alex Jones paying individuals to call the plaintiffs 24/7 and other direct forms of harassment.
Feel however you want about free speech but the lawsuit wasn't just Alex Jones said mean words.
There were several claims about things such as Alex Jones paying individuals to call the plaintiffs 24/7 and other direct forms of harassment.
Feel however you want about free speech but the lawsuit wasn't just Alex Jones said mean words.
IANAL, but I'd also imagine there's a difference between clear satire and something being presented as the truth. Additionally, The Onion generally goes after public figures while Infowars, in this case, was targeting private individuals. Not sure how either of these have bearing in the legal sense, but could be important factors.
Of course, in a politicized legal context, these points may not matter since legal action could simply be an endurance trial.
Of course, in a politicized legal context, these points may not matter since legal action could simply be an endurance trial.
>>I'd also imagine there's a difference between clear satire and something being presented as the truth.
There is, and the 1st amendment's coverage of Parody/Satire is very well documented. The Onion has always made it clear that it's fake news, Infowars fought tooth and nail to say they're allowed to say their "truth" even if it's harmful lies. When you can prove that someone believes the damaging bullshit they're saying (not always easy!) they get their dick kicked in.
To your other point, "a well-financed bad actor could ruin any business with enough SLAPP lawsuits" falls away because anti-SLAPP laws exist and award damages if you push too hard.
Do perfectly good people get ruined through litigation? Sure. Is it the epidemic that grifters trying to sway public opinion in their favor make it out to be? Highly unlikely.
To your other point, "a well-financed bad actor could ruin any business with enough SLAPP lawsuits" falls away because anti-SLAPP laws exist and award damages if you push too hard.
Do perfectly good people get ruined through litigation? Sure. Is it the epidemic that grifters trying to sway public opinion in their favor make it out to be? Highly unlikely.
A lot of jurisdictions have anti-SLAPP lawsuits, but not all. I think Logan Paul is trying to sue YouTuber Coffeezilla in a district that doesn't have anti-SLAPP protections with the express intent of bankrupting him.
Fair enough. I didn't know it was a walkover in the end. And it is not really surprising there was no sane defence.
I believe Info Wars etc becoming big is pretty much a symptom rather than the problem. And it has escalated lately. I fear that they will be used as excuses for getting at others.
I believe Info Wars etc becoming big is pretty much a symptom rather than the problem. And it has escalated lately. I fear that they will be used as excuses for getting at others.
> I believe Info Wars etc becoming big is pretty much a symptom rather than the problem
I believe the problem is how incredibly easy it is to both disseminate and consume utter bullshit. You're no longer that weird loner in town. You go online and can find hundreds and thousands of people who agree with you. Why would you go find people that challenge your views, when you can get those dopamine highs from people who love everything you say?
Get pushback from people in your life? Cut them out. They don't get you, and they're just hating.
The worst part? It's self-sustaining. Humans are really bad about going against a group. So much of our social behavior is around what others do, and the more we find out about others believing XYZ, we'll start to believe it ourselves. Unless they're from a different group, in which case it is anathema.
Combine those 2 things and you get these people who basically live in separate worlds. And social media/internet enables that.
I believe the problem is how incredibly easy it is to both disseminate and consume utter bullshit. You're no longer that weird loner in town. You go online and can find hundreds and thousands of people who agree with you. Why would you go find people that challenge your views, when you can get those dopamine highs from people who love everything you say?
Get pushback from people in your life? Cut them out. They don't get you, and they're just hating.
The worst part? It's self-sustaining. Humans are really bad about going against a group. So much of our social behavior is around what others do, and the more we find out about others believing XYZ, we'll start to believe it ourselves. Unless they're from a different group, in which case it is anathema.
Combine those 2 things and you get these people who basically live in separate worlds. And social media/internet enables that.
I think there is a three fold problem of the mental health crisis, decreased social trust (broken communities etc) and algorithmic feeds.
I don't know if Alex Jones is mentally ill or pretends to be. His targeting seems suspiciously self-aware and lame compared to how it usually sounds when people wander down that path.
But I guess most of his viewership is. But they existed on the internets in the beginning too. Plenty of them. Maybe the recommendation engines bring more people into the "self-sustaining" circle, than would be otherwise?
I think what has changed is mainly that there are more 'leaders'. I might have had the wrong conception of what it was like earlier, but apart from Alex Jones and the lizard guy (David Ike?) it didn't seem to be that many.
Something has changed. There are so many lunatic "influencers" nowadays that keep getting pushed to the top. Earlier you had to get out of your way to stumble upon them.
I don't know if Alex Jones is mentally ill or pretends to be. His targeting seems suspiciously self-aware and lame compared to how it usually sounds when people wander down that path.
But I guess most of his viewership is. But they existed on the internets in the beginning too. Plenty of them. Maybe the recommendation engines bring more people into the "self-sustaining" circle, than would be otherwise?
I think what has changed is mainly that there are more 'leaders'. I might have had the wrong conception of what it was like earlier, but apart from Alex Jones and the lizard guy (David Ike?) it didn't seem to be that many.
Something has changed. There are so many lunatic "influencers" nowadays that keep getting pushed to the top. Earlier you had to get out of your way to stumble upon them.
> Why would you go find people that challenge your views
Obviously in some kind of minority, but I love having my views challenged. It’s how I grow. I want people to argue with me, though ideally, respectfully.
Obviously in some kind of minority, but I love having my views challenged. It’s how I grow. I want people to argue with me, though ideally, respectfully.
> I believe the problem is how incredibly easy it is to both disseminate and consume utter bullshit.
But more importantly, how easy it is to make a lot of money disseminating it.
But more importantly, how easy it is to make a lot of money disseminating it.
the problem was that it was profitable.
> Seems like the article is really gleeful.
Good! It should be. Alex Jones is a ghoul making money from dead school shooting victims. Anything that embarrasses him is entitled to as much glee as it wants.
Good! It should be. Alex Jones is a ghoul making money from dead school shooting victims. Anything that embarrasses him is entitled to as much glee as it wants.
tomp(2)
Yes and he profits from fooling mentally ill people. Selling homeopatic pills and whatever.
But I think the right to be wrong is way more important than getting at Alexander Jones.
The precedent is bad.
But I think the right to be wrong is way more important than getting at Alexander Jones.
The precedent is bad.
I can't imagine a more valid use for defamation laws than to prevent someone from knowingly and repeatedly causing death threats and other harassment to be directed at parents whose children have been murdered. After being sued, Jones completely failed to defend himself in any meaningful way and lost the suit by default. I honestly have no idea which part of this chain of events you object to. People should be free to send mobs after parents grieving an unimaginable tragedy? Morons who get sued should win by default?
There is a right to be wrong.
But when you profit off the suffering and harm you've caused by being wrong knowingly and continuing to cause harm, then its a very good precedent.
But when you profit off the suffering and harm you've caused by being wrong knowingly and continuing to cause harm, then its a very good precedent.
> The precedent is bad.
I think the opposite precent would be worse. Regulating your tone around anyone with even a mediocum of power for fear of repercussion is part of the reason we're in the situation we face today.
I think the opposite precent would be worse. Regulating your tone around anyone with even a mediocum of power for fear of repercussion is part of the reason we're in the situation we face today.
Calling Sandy Hook a hoax and harrassing grieving parents is not "the right to be wrong".
nixdev(2)
"Being wrong" and "repeatedly defaming people" are quite different.
The Paradox of Tolerance: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance>
A good reply I found online:
The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard but as a social contract. If someone does not abide the terms of mutual tolerance, then they are not covered by the contract. By definition intolerant people do not follow the rules so they are no longer covered and should not be tolerated.
A good reply I found online:
The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard but as a social contract. If someone does not abide the terms of mutual tolerance, then they are not covered by the contract. By definition intolerant people do not follow the rules so they are no longer covered and should not be tolerated.
That's awfully close to "terrorists shouldn't have rights", and problematic for the same reason.
I think it's actually closer to "terrorists should go to prison". Terrorists and other criminals have broken a social contract, and a level of punishment that some approximation of society deems to be acceptable is extracted from the terrorists. This doesn't mean that terrorists don't/shouldn't have some rights. Similarly, thinking about tolerance as a social contract doesn't require stripping anyone who violates this contract of all of their rights.
FWIW I don't actually have a problem with Jones specifically getting in trouble over defamation after getting his day in court. What I have a problem with is the broad notion that it's generally okay to "not tolerate the intolerant" to the point of forcibly suppressing them. The paradox of tolerance is not really a paradox when we're talking about intolerant speech.
I'm kind of worried about society deciding which speech is "intolerant", so I'm not completely on board with the idea of treating tolerance as a social contract. That being said, if we could stop a genocide merely by suppressing people's speech, I feel like that would probably be a worthwhile thing to do. That is to say, it feels like the least bad way to prevent a genocide.
Again, figuring out which speech is worth suppressing is a whole other can of worms.
EDIT: note that Jones did have his speech suppressed, and this was done because his speech was causing people to make death threats against the sandy hook parents. I feel like we could classify Jones's speech as intolerant against sandy hook parents, and the same logic applies as for any other type of intolerant speech.
Again, figuring out which speech is worth suppressing is a whole other can of worms.
EDIT: note that Jones did have his speech suppressed, and this was done because his speech was causing people to make death threats against the sandy hook parents. I feel like we could classify Jones's speech as intolerant against sandy hook parents, and the same logic applies as for any other type of intolerant speech.
Indeed. And one of the wonders of this is that anyone can determine that you have not abided by the terms. Even Stalin’s Russia was tolerant. It merely deemed many people to not abide by the terms of mutual tolerance.
I have yet to hear what meaning tolerance has in this interpretation.
Surely chairman mao agrees with free speech that doesn’t harm his society and social programs
Surely chairman mao agrees with free speech that doesn’t harm his society and social programs
The right to be wrong is important.
The right to deliberately lie in ways that harm people is not a "right" that we want to uphold.
The right to deliberately lie in ways that harm people is not a "right" that we want to uphold.
And profit off of the lies.
The precedent would otherwise be that it is ok ignoring and debasing the US Justice system.
What precedent do you think this sets exactly?
nixdev(1)
Great point! When The Onion starts making threats against survivors and relatives of school shootings, they should also face defamation lawsuits.
Honest question: what threats did Jones make against them? I understood that he claimed it was a hoax/conspiracy, not that he had made any threats. Not even sure how he could make threats against people he didn't believe were real.
The threats were made by Jones followers rather than Jones personally.
Okay. But I think that undermines the argument the OP was making significantly.
"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
And when one of your followers has done the deed throw them under a bus.
I think that's a very different statement from "God, I hate that stupid priest. He's so meddlesome." Criticizing people should not count as incitement in a liberal society- consider whether people who told an audience that Trump was a fascist should be held accountable for the assassination attempts. This is defamation.
A court already determined he is guilty. If he thought he was innocent, he had the opportunity to present any defense he wanted. Whether or not he is at fault isn't a point of discussion because it's already been determined for a fact.
Yes, he is guilty. But he's guilty of defamation, not incitement. It is an important distinction because "I thought that was true" is a defense in a defamation case, but not in incitement- you can't say "the pope is catholic, go kill him now", regardless of whether he is actually catholic.
"He didn't present a defense therefore it has been determined for a fact that he is guilty" is not especially sound. You'd have to concede the existence of witches on the absurd end, and that everyone who makes a plea deal is guilty on the more rational end. He's guilty because he publicly made harmful defamatory statements that he privately did not believe, both of which are made clear by evidence.
"He didn't present a defense therefore it has been determined for a fact that he is guilty" is not especially sound. You'd have to concede the existence of witches on the absurd end, and that everyone who makes a plea deal is guilty on the more rational end. He's guilty because he publicly made harmful defamatory statements that he privately did not believe, both of which are made clear by evidence.
Did he actually call for people to make threats or use violence? Did he even imply it?
Do you apply the same standard to public figures who call Trump a fascist or a Nazi? Are they responsible for the person who shot him?
Do you apply the same standard to public figures who call Trump a fascist or a Nazi? Are they responsible for the person who shot him?
Some examples of what he said
>You’ve got parents laughing — ‘hahaha’ — and then they walk over to the camera and go ‘boo hoo hoo,’ and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? I mean, they think we’re so dumb.”
>“Why did Hitler blow up the Reichstag — to get control! Why do governments stage these things — to get our guns! Why can’t people get that through their head?” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jo...
Re double standards on Trump, I think people are ok with criticizing power hungry politicians, less so with parents who have had their kids killed.
The Jones case was a civil case for damages. He's not going to prison or anything - just losing some assets. Trump is free to sue people who've implied he's a nazi (maybe he could start with JD) but I don't know how sympathetic a jury would be.
>You’ve got parents laughing — ‘hahaha’ — and then they walk over to the camera and go ‘boo hoo hoo,’ and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? I mean, they think we’re so dumb.”
>“Why did Hitler blow up the Reichstag — to get control! Why do governments stage these things — to get our guns! Why can’t people get that through their head?” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jo...
Re double standards on Trump, I think people are ok with criticizing power hungry politicians, less so with parents who have had their kids killed.
The Jones case was a civil case for damages. He's not going to prison or anything - just losing some assets. Trump is free to sue people who've implied he's a nazi (maybe he could start with JD) but I don't know how sympathetic a jury would be.
We're not discussing the case generally. We're asking if the assertion that he THREATENED anyone, holds water. So far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence, that he has.
Whatever you think about the case, it should be decided with factual statements, not emotional manipulative accusations that bend the truth.
Whatever you think about the case, it should be decided with factual statements, not emotional manipulative accusations that bend the truth.
Yeah, it seems he didn't directly threaten the families.
If I understand correctly: if I threaten a third party based on something you’ve said, you now face legal liability?
Googling:
>To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages
So probably no in that case as there was no significant damage. Sandy Hook was different in that there were ongoing threats and harassment for years.
>To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages
So probably no in that case as there was no significant damage. Sandy Hook was different in that there were ongoing threats and harassment for years.
A single person reacting that way is unlikely to make the speaker liable, but when a large crowd reacts the same way and the speaker does not make attempts to defuse the situation, then liability should be assigned.
So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not suggesting you’re wrong or right, but your approach places a novel legal burden on observers, and thus detaches it from actors, where the responsibility currently lies.
> So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries?
Not at all - I'm saying the liability should go in the opposite direction. If worldstar fight videos incite lots of people to start fighting in the streets, then worldstar should be partially responsible unless they take actions to distance themselves from their viewers' actions.
Not at all - I'm saying the liability should go in the opposite direction. If worldstar fight videos incite lots of people to start fighting in the streets, then worldstar should be partially responsible unless they take actions to distance themselves from their viewers' actions.
So if Alex Jones posts on WorldStar, they’d be liable? How far does deplatforming responsibility extend in this theory?
reaperducer(1)
The Onion was not telling the parents of dead children they were crisis actors and were lying
Don't want to be sued by defamation don't make BS about people in a fragile position. It's that simple
Don't want to be sued by defamation don't make BS about people in a fragile position. It's that simple
In the US, the truth is a strong and approved defense against defamation. If you are for some reason terrified of defamation lawsuits in the one nation with the highest bar required to prove defamation, you can avoid any possible loss by simply not lying.
Er... the Onion is satire. Satire is not defamation because no one with any sense thinks it's true. InfoWars was not satire. Rather, it constantly lied.
I’m glad that you didn’t waste effort saying “I am not a lawyer” here, because it’s very very apparent that you aren’t.
You have to step extremely far over the line to be brought down by such a lawsuit, particularly if you have money to spend on legal defense (as Jones did previously, or the Onion does today). Jones went over that line one time too many, in a country where a lot of people strongly dislike him. It's like being Martin Shkreli, the system* is going to keep targeting you and eventually get you (entirely warranted) on one of your legal infractions. The more you're a jerk and stick your head up prominently, the more you're going to draw counter attacks to your behavior by the varied masses.
* the system referring to the vast combination of peoples: politicians, legal, monied interests, lobbyists, news media, corporations, journalists, agitators, whatever, et al
* the system referring to the vast combination of peoples: politicians, legal, monied interests, lobbyists, news media, corporations, journalists, agitators, whatever, et al
[deleted]
it absolutely can not, satire is protected under the first amendment and there are piles of precedence
Can't tell if this is satire or not, that's the real irony here.
Tim Onion's (Ben Collins) statement on Bluesky: [0]
> Hi everyone.
> The Onion, with the help of the Sandy Hook families, has purchased InfoWars.
> We are planning on making it a very funny, very stupid website.
> We have retained the services of some Onion and Clickhole Hall of Famers to pull this off.
> I can't wait to show you what we have cooked up.
Next post: [1]
> Does anybody need millions of dollars worth of supplements?
[0] https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3law22g...
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3law23r...
> Hi everyone.
> The Onion, with the help of the Sandy Hook families, has purchased InfoWars.
> We are planning on making it a very funny, very stupid website.
> We have retained the services of some Onion and Clickhole Hall of Famers to pull this off.
> I can't wait to show you what we have cooked up.
Next post: [1]
> Does anybody need millions of dollars worth of supplements?
[0] https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3law22g...
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3law23r...
The funniest thing would be to keep running the site as-is but swap out the insanity for stuff that reads like insanity but is legit or morally sound. The audience might not notice, and could (IMHO) easily be duped into supporting good causes!
This is exactly what I was thinking. Being funny is great, but for years people will continue to go to the website not knowing what has transpired.
The core idea of satire, which is often missed in supposedly satirical works is that you should not only make fun of the thing you don't believe, but you should also explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it.
For example everybody knows Swift's Modest Proposal does not seriously intend that the problems in Ireland ought to be fixed by literally eating children, but if you read it, the proposal also very clearly explains what should be done, in the form of taxation of the wealthy absentee landlords (many of them English) for example - it just couches all these boring but entirely reasonable steps as ludicrous and easily dismissed while insisting that eating babies is a good idea.
For example everybody knows Swift's Modest Proposal does not seriously intend that the problems in Ireland ought to be fixed by literally eating children, but if you read it, the proposal also very clearly explains what should be done, in the form of taxation of the wealthy absentee landlords (many of them English) for example - it just couches all these boring but entirely reasonable steps as ludicrous and easily dismissed while insisting that eating babies is a good idea.
> The core idea of satire, which is often missed in supposedly satirical works is that you should not only make fun of the thing you don't believe, but you should also explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it.
I often suggest that satire is a dangerous double edged sword and not a good primary vehicle for positive change. Part of your audience will understand it's satire, but a significant part maybe even a majority, might take is as genuine or worse come to embrace/support the satirized.
I believe we ask and expect too much of satire which relies heavily on hypocrisy and shame, two concepts that no longer carry the same weight.
Examples: South Park, The Colbert Report, SNL, The Onion
I often suggest that satire is a dangerous double edged sword and not a good primary vehicle for positive change. Part of your audience will understand it's satire, but a significant part maybe even a majority, might take is as genuine or worse come to embrace/support the satirized.
I believe we ask and expect too much of satire which relies heavily on hypocrisy and shame, two concepts that no longer carry the same weight.
Examples: South Park, The Colbert Report, SNL, The Onion
> I believe we ask and expect too much of satire
Yes, if you expect anything from satire you expect too much. Let it be art, not propaganda.
Allow yourself to find poor execution of agreeable messages distasteful. Allow yourself to enjoy good execution of messages you disagree with.
Yes, if you expect anything from satire you expect too much. Let it be art, not propaganda.
Allow yourself to find poor execution of agreeable messages distasteful. Allow yourself to enjoy good execution of messages you disagree with.
> Allow yourself to find poor execution of agreeable messages distasteful. Allow yourself to enjoy good execution of messages you disagree with.
This makes sense. If you find yourself understanding and judging messages based simply off of their merits then you have failed to insert an arbitrary aesthetic filter into your cognitive process. The wisest sages know to value style over substance
This makes sense. If you find yourself understanding and judging messages based simply off of their merits then you have failed to insert an arbitrary aesthetic filter into your cognitive process. The wisest sages know to value style over substance
One could say 'the wisest sages know to value style and substance'
Or even: 'the wisest sages know that incorrect results can be based on some sound thinking and some muddled thinking, and correct results can be derived by tortuous thinking'
Or maybe: 'the wisest sages know that some things are neither objectively true nor objectively false, and can appreciate good arguments for positions they disagree with'
Or even: 'the wisest sages know that incorrect results can be based on some sound thinking and some muddled thinking, and correct results can be derived by tortuous thinking'
Or maybe: 'the wisest sages know that some things are neither objectively true nor objectively false, and can appreciate good arguments for positions they disagree with'
I'm not sure I agree with you (your parent could be taken to simply mean, appreciate good-faith arguments, even if you disagree with them), but I appreciate your contextual use of satire.
> Let it be art, not propaganda
You cannot “explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it” without blurring the line between propaganda and art. That is true of both the best art and propaganda. If someone disagrees with the message, or coöpts it, it’s propaganda.
You cannot “explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it” without blurring the line between propaganda and art. That is true of both the best art and propaganda. If someone disagrees with the message, or coöpts it, it’s propaganda.
You can execute the message "We think you, and people like you, should be killed" as well as you like, I'm still not going to enjoy it.
> Let it be art, not propaganda.
My friend I have some news for you.
Edit: almost ended it there but remembered what website I’m on.
I don’t think there’s a material difference between art and propaganda. The art you like is merely the propaganda which you do not question.
My friend I have some news for you.
Edit: almost ended it there but remembered what website I’m on.
I don’t think there’s a material difference between art and propaganda. The art you like is merely the propaganda which you do not question.
> The art you like is merely the propaganda which you do not question.
I like this thought because it can be directly refuted by Cotton Eye Joe by Rednex — a highly popular piece of art that does nothing but present the audience with questions to ponder.
I like this thought because it can be directly refuted by Cotton Eye Joe by Rednex — a highly popular piece of art that does nothing but present the audience with questions to ponder.
So..... Monet's Water Lilies
is propaganda....
What is it's message?
What is it's message?
"The classical tradition of "accurate" painting (Raphael and Michelangelo and Rembrandt) is not exciting.
But we're not ready to go full on free jazz/postmodernist/de-constructionist. You're not ready for it yet, but your kids are going to love it."
But we're not ready to go full on free jazz/postmodernist/de-constructionist. You're not ready for it yet, but your kids are going to love it."
I disagree on the point that art is propaganda, but I can't point out almost all art contains a propaganda of some kind.
Monet's Water Lilies influences common viewers to find a beauty and romanticism in simple nature.
Long exposure to Monet will in general make people gaze more appreciatively at trees every now and then.
Propaganda doesn't inherently mean bad or political. Healthy lifestyle propaganda is actually a good thing, for example (also the current healthy lifestyle propaganda seems poorly executed. I much prefer the 60s american, european and soviet versions of it).
Propaganda doesn't inherently mean bad or political. Healthy lifestyle propaganda is actually a good thing, for example (also the current healthy lifestyle propaganda seems poorly executed. I much prefer the 60s american, european and soviet versions of it).
Floating flowers rule, land flowers drool
the ephemeral beauty i strive constantly to capture, studying these same details in this same garden across the infinitely variable day, this honest and perfect imperfection that i'm famous for revealing and sharing with the world, is within every moment of every life and every human being.
(significantly he made a gift of these paintings to the french state as a war memorial)
(significantly he made a gift of these paintings to the french state as a war memorial)
For a contemporary example, what is the message of a painting of a watermelon?
It could be merely that watermelons are beautiful. Or it could be that the artist supports the people of Palestine.
For a less extreme example, think about the paintings of Norman Rockwell. Are they just pretty images? Or do they communicate norms?
Think also about what is censored vs what is not censored.
It could be merely that watermelons are beautiful. Or it could be that the artist supports the people of Palestine.
For a less extreme example, think about the paintings of Norman Rockwell. Are they just pretty images? Or do they communicate norms?
Think also about what is censored vs what is not censored.
Chairmansteve didn’t ask about theoretical paintings of watermelons that you have imagined though, he asked about Water Lilies by Monet, which is art that famously exists and is liked by many, many real people.
If your point is “all art is propaganda aside from art that exists and must be replaced piece-by-piece with hypothetical counterparts in my head to support this conjecture” you could have just written that. Though “some art is propaganda and some is not” is less profound sounding than “all art is propaganda”
If your point is “all art is propaganda aside from art that exists and must be replaced piece-by-piece with hypothetical counterparts in my head to support this conjecture” you could have just written that. Though “some art is propaganda and some is not” is less profound sounding than “all art is propaganda”
I definitely see the problems you are pointing out, but ultimately these calls from you and gp to forms of responsibility or to be a "vehicle for positive change" of satirical or otherwise funny things leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I just sometimes want things to be cathartic, I don't really care if they are pushing the needle of the world's ills. I want to be able to laugh and not necessarily be a better person for it! There has got to be some space for that too, right?
And ok, if there is some committee somewhere to dictate that all satire must be "responsible", must follow its founding Swiftian maxim, then fine, we don't have to call it that. But whatever it is can still be good, can help those find a little fun in an absurd world. We should care as much about the simply depressed people as we do the possibly confused or evil.
And ok, if there is some committee somewhere to dictate that all satire must be "responsible", must follow its founding Swiftian maxim, then fine, we don't have to call it that. But whatever it is can still be good, can help those find a little fun in an absurd world. We should care as much about the simply depressed people as we do the possibly confused or evil.
I don't think there's a committee, I'm pretty sure I do not have veto over online comedy. Think of this as a pointed criticism of how things could be better, not as a tearing down of what is good. And you don't need to be made a better person per se, but my argument is that the work should try to offer that, not that you must accept it when offered.
I don't need to use a toilet on a train most of the time, but I think long distance trains obviously should all have toilets - even if I didn't need one this trip.
In larger works the other side of the coin needn't be in the next paragraph. When I read Private Eye for example the cover headline "MAN IN HAT SITS ON CHAIR" isn't doing anything beyond poking fun at the King (the crown is just a hat, the throne is just a chair) but the magazine overall funds a lot of serious investigative journalism and sheds light on important issues. Years before a TV drama made it into a government scandal problems with Horizon and getting justice for those wrongly convicted were extensively discussed in the Eye for example.
I don't need to use a toilet on a train most of the time, but I think long distance trains obviously should all have toilets - even if I didn't need one this trip.
In larger works the other side of the coin needn't be in the next paragraph. When I read Private Eye for example the cover headline "MAN IN HAT SITS ON CHAIR" isn't doing anything beyond poking fun at the King (the crown is just a hat, the throne is just a chair) but the magazine overall funds a lot of serious investigative journalism and sheds light on important issues. Years before a TV drama made it into a government scandal problems with Horizon and getting justice for those wrongly convicted were extensively discussed in the Eye for example.
> I believe we ask and expect too much of satire which relies heavily on hypocrisy and shame, two concepts that no longer carry the same weight.
Indeed. It's amazing to me how many people I encounter these days who don't appear to consider hypocrisy a moral failing.
Indeed. It's amazing to me how many people I encounter these days who don't appear to consider hypocrisy a moral failing.
been shamed too many times, man. Moral failing itself became just a button people try to press in my brain. Often very dishonest people. So, welcome to moral learned helplessness, and damn the moralizers.
ALSO: thinking means changing your mind, which often exposes you to being called a hypocrite
ALSO: thinking means changing your mind, which often exposes you to being called a hypocrite
Satire is not a tool for change. In fact the opposite as laughter sublimates the emotions that would otherwise lead to action (cf Orwell’s 1984).
However people are not always in a position to change things and satire can be a useful outlet for venting, but culturally can also be good for providing talking points.
Southpark and the Onion strike a chord with me the others less so, I think because they believe that they are agents for change.
I love John Oliver though. He follows up his rants with some sensible ideas sometimes. Not everyone’s cup of tea though for sure.
However people are not always in a position to change things and satire can be a useful outlet for venting, but culturally can also be good for providing talking points.
Southpark and the Onion strike a chord with me the others less so, I think because they believe that they are agents for change.
I love John Oliver though. He follows up his rants with some sensible ideas sometimes. Not everyone’s cup of tea though for sure.
Those are all still far more positive than negative examples, even if they each spawned small contingents of people who don't get the irony. Plus, if you know that's gonna happen anyway, then steer the dumb ironic interpretations towards something equally useful - or so ridiculous it at least educates other people.
>I often suggest that satire is a dangerous double edged sword and not a good primary vehicle for positive change.
When I write with the intent of my words being read at face value I get downvoted, flagged or my post get sent into the void by some AI depending on platform.
So satire and memes it is.
When I write with the intent of my words being read at face value I get downvoted, flagged or my post get sent into the void by some AI depending on platform.
So satire and memes it is.
Can't decide if the people downvoting you don't realise the irony, or are deliberately downvoting you for the irony.
> The core idea of satire
I've never read this definition from any historical author or famous literary critic. I think you made this up yourself from first principles-- am I right on that?
In any case, this definition would make a special case out of Animal Farm which is probably the most famous satire. I cringe imagining Orwell have one of the animals "dismiss" his preferred theoretical vision of good governance as a wink to the audience. I don't even think Orwell presumed to know what that would look like.
I've never read this definition from any historical author or famous literary critic. I think you made this up yourself from first principles-- am I right on that?
In any case, this definition would make a special case out of Animal Farm which is probably the most famous satire. I cringe imagining Orwell have one of the animals "dismiss" his preferred theoretical vision of good governance as a wink to the audience. I don't even think Orwell presumed to know what that would look like.
The original idea of satire was to make fun of unjust leaders. It doesn’t have to be as sophisticated as swift at all. It just has to strike a chord (originally, literally) with the audience.
Satire requires a good deal of intelligence and education to both write and consume. Without those two inputs, satire is a propaganda.
When you take a satirical concept and ratchet up the absurdity such that only ignorant (willfully or otherwise) people believe it, the result can be a powerful influence over them. Conspiracy theories often use this approach, as do talking heads on some networks.
Think about how early Stephen Colbert skits often comprised of him acting like Bill O'Reilly; not saying funny things in the style of O'Reilly, but merely imitating him. The difference between satire and propaganda is often packaging and audience.
For another example, you can look at posts of people who read Onion articles without realizing they are satire. These people are often pissed off, so much so that they share a 3 year old article on social media to spread the word.
When you take a satirical concept and ratchet up the absurdity such that only ignorant (willfully or otherwise) people believe it, the result can be a powerful influence over them. Conspiracy theories often use this approach, as do talking heads on some networks.
Think about how early Stephen Colbert skits often comprised of him acting like Bill O'Reilly; not saying funny things in the style of O'Reilly, but merely imitating him. The difference between satire and propaganda is often packaging and audience.
For another example, you can look at posts of people who read Onion articles without realizing they are satire. These people are often pissed off, so much so that they share a 3 year old article on social media to spread the word.
Yep. Insert little-known stories that are documented conspiracies that aren't hypotheticals similar to the fine content of DamnInteresting. Be sure to use lots of graphics and editoralizing/clickbait headlines.
- Radium girls
- Eugenics experiments
- Forced sterilization
- ~600 Tennessee sober "drunk driving" arrests
- Radium girls
- Eugenics experiments
- Forced sterilization
- ~600 Tennessee sober "drunk driving" arrests
> documented conspiracies that aren't hypotheticals
And, ironically since it's what launched Jones' career, Bohemian Club & Grove: https://x.com/abbieasr/status/1462953203067240450
Luckily my conscience is clean because I discovered the existence of that place not from AJ but by studying the North Pacific Coast Railroad, which used to go directly to The Grove in Sonoma:
https://archive.org/details/bwb_W7-BOG-168
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1SkFrgLj-TR4gyw9Y4m...
For anyone so inclined, the path of the NPCR makes a beautiful Sunday drive!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXh0bQIZw1g
And, ironically since it's what launched Jones' career, Bohemian Club & Grove: https://x.com/abbieasr/status/1462953203067240450
Luckily my conscience is clean because I discovered the existence of that place not from AJ but by studying the North Pacific Coast Railroad, which used to go directly to The Grove in Sonoma:
https://archive.org/details/bwb_W7-BOG-168
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1SkFrgLj-TR4gyw9Y4m...
For anyone so inclined, the path of the NPCR makes a beautiful Sunday drive!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXh0bQIZw1g
> And, ironically since it's what launched Jones' career, Bohemian Club & Grove: https://x.com/abbieasr/status/1462953203067240450
Too late to edit but I just realized the version of this I linked removed the “Bohemian Club” that was present in this older version. Strange! https://x.com/abbieasr/status/1312512066071060480
Too late to edit but I just realized the version of this I linked removed the “Bohemian Club” that was present in this older version. Strange! https://x.com/abbieasr/status/1312512066071060480
What is the conspiracy? It’s a social club for old rich men that has some goofy rituals. It’s just freemasonry for the upper crust elite.
I think it's interesting that so many governmental and corporate leaders meet up (or maybe met up? in the 20th Century) to talk shop outside the view of the public eye. It's relevant to anyone who wants to study Bay Area history or the history of World War Ⅱ technologies. For example, the Manhattan Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-1_Executive_Committee#/media...
> “The September 1942 meeting [of the S-1 Executive Committee] was held at Bohemian Grove. Nichols and Major Thomas T. Crenshaw, Jr., attended, along with physicist Robert Oppenheimer. This meeting resolved most of the outstanding issues confronting the [Manhattan] project, but [Vannevar] Bush and [James B.] Conant felt that the time had now come for the Army to take over the project, something that had already been approved by the president on June 17, 1942. After some discussion, it was decided that [Leslie R.] Groves, who would be promoted to the rank of brigadier general, would become the director of the Manhattan Project on September 23, 1942. He would be answerable to the Military Policy Committee (MPC), which would consist of Styer, Bush (with Conant as his alternate) and Rear Admiral William R. Purnell.”
> “The September 1942 meeting [of the S-1 Executive Committee] was held at Bohemian Grove. Nichols and Major Thomas T. Crenshaw, Jr., attended, along with physicist Robert Oppenheimer. This meeting resolved most of the outstanding issues confronting the [Manhattan] project, but [Vannevar] Bush and [James B.] Conant felt that the time had now come for the Army to take over the project, something that had already been approved by the president on June 17, 1942. After some discussion, it was decided that [Leslie R.] Groves, who would be promoted to the rank of brigadier general, would become the director of the Manhattan Project on September 23, 1942. He would be answerable to the Military Policy Committee (MPC), which would consist of Styer, Bush (with Conant as his alternate) and Rear Admiral William R. Purnell.”
- Project Timber Sycamore
- The Douma Gas hoax
Fun times.
- The Douma Gas hoax
Fun times.
keep running the site as-is but swap out the insanity for stuff that reads like insanity but is legit or morally sound.
Sounds like that's sort of what's happening:
"The publication plans to reintroduce Infowars in January as a parody of itself, mocking “weird internet personalities” like Mr. Jones who traffic in misinformation and health supplements, Ben Collins, the chief executive of The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, said in an interview."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/business/media/alex-jones...
Sounds like that's sort of what's happening:
"The publication plans to reintroduce Infowars in January as a parody of itself, mocking “weird internet personalities” like Mr. Jones who traffic in misinformation and health supplements, Ben Collins, the chief executive of The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, said in an interview."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/business/media/alex-jones...
I think this is called "Black Propaganda".
> The audience might not notice, and could (IMHO) easily be duped into supporting good causes!
What a deranged fantasy this is and yet how often it shows up. The audience will notice. Those who don't and eventually discover your duplicity will never forgive you for it. What you propose is disgusting and amoral, as it has no value, and is designed to mollify yourself by bulling people you clearly perceive as being beneath you.
What a deranged fantasy this is and yet how often it shows up. The audience will notice. Those who don't and eventually discover your duplicity will never forgive you for it. What you propose is disgusting and amoral, as it has no value, and is designed to mollify yourself by bulling people you clearly perceive as being beneath you.
It's amoral (sic) to improve the accuracy of a journalistic publication you've purchased? I'm struggling to find a more charitable way to interpret your statement.
Or is just the usage of the word "duped"? Some people are more interested in sensational rhetoric than more even-keeled reporting. It's unfortunate that they're currently mostly taken advantage of by hucksters. I think the creation of publications genuinely interested in facts but that use more appealing rhetoric is important to preserving journalism as an institution.
Or is just the usage of the word "duped"? Some people are more interested in sensational rhetoric than more even-keeled reporting. It's unfortunate that they're currently mostly taken advantage of by hucksters. I think the creation of publications genuinely interested in facts but that use more appealing rhetoric is important to preserving journalism as an institution.
The receptive audience would notice and then find other venues, I suspect. Especially with the warning of the former webmaster.
Crazy bullshit is only tempting if it's part of your engrieved group. A clever roleplay won't have the spiritual depravtivy needed.
Crazy bullshit is only tempting if it's part of your engrieved group. A clever roleplay won't have the spiritual depravtivy needed.
Those links don’t work for me. But these do:
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:x4qyokjtdzgl7gmqhsw4ajqj/po...
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:x4qyokjtdzgl7gmqhsw4ajqj/po...
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:x4qyokjtdzgl7gmqhsw4ajqj/po...
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:x4qyokjtdzgl7gmqhsw4ajqj/po...
Interesting. They should.. but Bksy is bouncing between 15 to 133 new users per second at the moment, and they are on bare metal. There is major service degradation at the moment. Pour one out for their team.
Indeed, your links now work for me. My post got a few upvotes, so I don’t think I was the only one experiencing the failure.
You were correct. When you replied, I tried my links and indeed they did not work at the time.
Only for the platform to die in a month anyway, when everybody inadvertenly runs back to Twitter...
The Onion is truly a national treasure.
they are fueled by clickbait, and they've promoted the practice.
it's probably the first site I've manually added to my dns blacklist.
it's probably the first site I've manually added to my dns blacklist.
I find this comment so funny I burst out laughing. I cannot tell whether you're serious.
My friend, you have eaten the onion.
I'm not from the US so naturally they've confused me in the past.
more than once I caught myself clicking on a shared headline of theirs, so I've added them to my DNS blocklist to avoid giving them clicks, decades ago.
my problem is not with their obviously ridiculous headlines, but the ones that hit the grey area, where it's as much good humor as a screamer is good horror.
more than once I caught myself clicking on a shared headline of theirs, so I've added them to my DNS blocklist to avoid giving them clicks, decades ago.
my problem is not with their obviously ridiculous headlines, but the ones that hit the grey area, where it's as much good humor as a screamer is good horror.
The thing is the onion is pretty much always ridiculous, so if some of them are in a "gray area" I think that moreso speaks to the overall climate or your own personal biases.
More likely to be a case of not being familiar with US politics and events. We're not the world, and plenty of Americans forget that.
[deleted]
Please note that Bsky servers appear to be suffering under the load of 15 new users per second, with bursts as high 133 new users per second!
They don't have to do much, it's already very funny and very stupid.
Yeah, my first thought was "the Sandy Hook parents chipped in for you to leave it as it is?"
Is that enough to tank the market with a fire sale? Probably not.
I'd chip in just to have that shit destroyed and see them selling onions instead.
judge blocked
Absolutely poetic.
Dude tried a career in journalism.
Had a crazy theory that a school shooting was fake.
School shooting wasn't fake.
Dude doesn't say "I'm sorry, my bad, I'm retiring from journalism", but goes down fighting.
Looks good to me.
Dude tried a career in journalism.
Had a crazy theory that a school shooting was fake.
School shooting wasn't fake.
Dude doesn't say "I'm sorry, my bad, I'm retiring from journalism", but goes down fighting.
Looks good to me.
> Dude tried a career in journalism.
> Had a crazy theory that a school shooting was fake.
This is absolutely not what happened. Jones is a grifter, and was never a journalist. He had no journalistic aspirations, and peddled exclusively in inane conspiracy theories either crafted personally or adopted selectively to inspire a constant state of fear and paranoia in a particular type of vulnerable person while aggressively channeling their anxieties into purchases of his prepper gear and phony health supplement business. This is a rare case of such a fraudster managing to accrue enough ire and attention that legal charges stuck and sunk him for the harm caused by one of his many careless lies. There are many like him who continue on with much the same strategy, some of whom have gained enough power and influence through their actions that they are now effectively untouchable by the legal system.
> Had a crazy theory that a school shooting was fake.
This is absolutely not what happened. Jones is a grifter, and was never a journalist. He had no journalistic aspirations, and peddled exclusively in inane conspiracy theories either crafted personally or adopted selectively to inspire a constant state of fear and paranoia in a particular type of vulnerable person while aggressively channeling their anxieties into purchases of his prepper gear and phony health supplement business. This is a rare case of such a fraudster managing to accrue enough ire and attention that legal charges stuck and sunk him for the harm caused by one of his many careless lies. There are many like him who continue on with much the same strategy, some of whom have gained enough power and influence through their actions that they are now effectively untouchable by the legal system.
> We are planning on making it a very funny, very stupid website.
Isn't it that already?
And how would The Onion know what funny actually is? Their content hasn't been that for well over a decade now.
Isn't it that already?
And how would The Onion know what funny actually is? Their content hasn't been that for well over a decade now.
I doubt that the SH families will receive the kind of money they could have had if they accepted Jones' original offer. Their lawyers made it clear they were in it not for their clients' interest but for their own political agenda.
Maybe the families were more interested in fixing the issue than in receiving some blood money in exchange for continued harm.
So, as it turns out, the auction was fraudulent and stopped by the judge...
I looked it up, but I can't find any article claiming the judge had made a ruling yet. The most recent news I can find [1] simply states that the auction loser is making a legal challenge, and that a hearing will happen in the future (the date scheduled at the last hearing was nov. 25th). Do you have a reputable news source for that claim?
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2024/11/19/g-s1-34985/alex-jones-infowar...
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2024/11/19/g-s1-34985/alex-jones-infowar...
It was an emergency ruling. The takeover that was supposed to happen was blocked. What The onion was $2M below another offer.
Exactly. What would make me feel better if my children were shot and killed? Censorship, obviously.
Well they asked for money, not "fixing the issue", which is not enforceable anyway without violating the 1st so that's not even a power the court has. Alex Jones will still be able to speak and profit from it, just not under the Infowars brand.
Lawyers file cases they can win to establish legal precedent.
The 1st amendment doesn't protect all forms of speech. Shouting Fire in a theater, sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment.
The 1st amendment doesn't protect all forms of speech. Shouting Fire in a theater, sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment.
> Lawyers file cases they can win to establish legal precedent.
That's actually very rare. Most cases get settled out of court and most court case don't make it to appeal; thus no legal precedent.
> Shouting Fire in a theater
This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
> sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment.
None of which are what Jones was sued for.
That's actually very rare. Most cases get settled out of court and most court case don't make it to appeal; thus no legal precedent.
> Shouting Fire in a theater
This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
> sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment.
None of which are what Jones was sued for.
I was more referring to his whole demographic mistakenly believing the first amendment should mean you get to be a kook or an asshole with no consequences.
And he’s definitely experiencing consequences.
Also on the Sandy Hook case, Remington settled out of court, which prevents setting precedent on culpability in gun violence.
And he’s definitely experiencing consequences.
Also on the Sandy Hook case, Remington settled out of court, which prevents setting precedent on culpability in gun violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
… he was sued for defamation[1], which is sort in line with the parent's point that the 1A doesn't grant you unfettered immunity to the consequences of your speech.
AIUI, the cases in total have awarded nearly $2B cumulative to the plaintiffs. That's a pretty hefty sum. According to Wikipedia, most of it hasn't been paid by Jones. ("By the end of the summer of 2023, Jones had paid nothing to the families" [for $1.5B of the cumulative penalties, 1])
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_Elementa...
> This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
(IANAL.) Partially overturned. And the existing jurisprudence still seems to say that like the above, you'd be held accountable for your actions. It isn't going to be "you can't say that", it would be something like "your actions (shouting fire, falsely) caused a stampede, and people were trampled, and you're now charged with manslaughter". (The Wikipedia article goes into this, too.)
… he was sued for defamation[1], which is sort in line with the parent's point that the 1A doesn't grant you unfettered immunity to the consequences of your speech.
AIUI, the cases in total have awarded nearly $2B cumulative to the plaintiffs. That's a pretty hefty sum. According to Wikipedia, most of it hasn't been paid by Jones. ("By the end of the summer of 2023, Jones had paid nothing to the families" [for $1.5B of the cumulative penalties, 1])
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_Elementa...
> This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
(IANAL.) Partially overturned. And the existing jurisprudence still seems to say that like the above, you'd be held accountable for your actions. It isn't going to be "you can't say that", it would be something like "your actions (shouting fire, falsely) caused a stampede, and people were trampled, and you're now charged with manslaughter". (The Wikipedia article goes into this, too.)
Can you elaborate? What was the offer? They won a judgement over $1B.
Also, I don’t think their agenda is political, it is personal.
Also, I don’t think their agenda is political, it is personal.
Jones is not worth $1B. He's barely worth a million with the lawsuits and legal costs; thus the bankruptcy. He offered them about $100M over 20 years or something like that but the SH families lawyers refused.
I've watched the trial, the SH lawyers are not loyal to the victims and families.
I've watched the trial, the SH lawyers are not loyal to the victims and families.
Right, the intention of the suit was to personally harm Jones as retribution for the immeasurable harm he has caused them.
They don't need money, I'm sure they have enough. They denied his money because that isn't the point - they want to mock him.
And, I fully support them. They're in a unique position and frankly I'm very impressed at their restraint in choosing the legal system over violence. If I were Jones, I would consider myself very lucky.
They don't need money, I'm sure they have enough. They denied his money because that isn't the point - they want to mock him.
And, I fully support them. They're in a unique position and frankly I'm very impressed at their restraint in choosing the legal system over violence. If I were Jones, I would consider myself very lucky.
Their intention was to silence him. Literally what they said; which is illegal.
> They don't need money,
These are normal people, what are you talking about?
> I'm very impressed at their restraint in choosing the legal system over violence.
That's not impressive, that's what the vast majority of people do.
> They don't need money,
These are normal people, what are you talking about?
> I'm very impressed at their restraint in choosing the legal system over violence.
That's not impressive, that's what the vast majority of people do.
> Their intention was to silence him. Literally what they said; which is illegal.
No, defamation is illegal. Me suing you for lying and directly causing me financial harm is not illegal.
> These are normal people, what are you talking about?
They've gotten a lot of money on account of the fact their families were victims of a tragedy. I'm assuming they don't need more money because they literally turned down a few hundred thousand dollars from Jones.
Also, this "what are you talking about?" BS needs to stop. You know what I'm talking about, or at least you can assume. Don't pretend like what I'm saying is so outrageous and unbelievable. You can respond without being annoying, please and thank you.
No, defamation is illegal. Me suing you for lying and directly causing me financial harm is not illegal.
> These are normal people, what are you talking about?
They've gotten a lot of money on account of the fact their families were victims of a tragedy. I'm assuming they don't need more money because they literally turned down a few hundred thousand dollars from Jones.
Also, this "what are you talking about?" BS needs to stop. You know what I'm talking about, or at least you can assume. Don't pretend like what I'm saying is so outrageous and unbelievable. You can respond without being annoying, please and thank you.
> "That's not impressive, that's what the vast majority of people do."
The vast majority of people don’t have to endure someone with an audience of millions falsely claiming their murdered children were part of a government conspiracy. Under those circumstances, many might be driven to retaliate violently. It’s a testament to these individuals' strength and restraint that they pursued justice through the legal system instead.
The vast majority of people don’t have to endure someone with an audience of millions falsely claiming their murdered children were part of a government conspiracy. Under those circumstances, many might be driven to retaliate violently. It’s a testament to these individuals' strength and restraint that they pursued justice through the legal system instead.
Life is not a movie. People are boring, want to avoid trouble as much as possible and don't even seriously consider the use of violence even when they are deeply hurt. The father who kills his kids' rapist? Very very rare.
They already got $73M from Remington. I wouldn't be after more money if I were in that position.
Did the original offer include shutting down Infowars? Of not I expect many of them feel they got plenty more that whatever cash Jones was offering. There is more to this life than money.
> Did the original offer include shutting down Infowars?
That was part of the SH families' lawyer final argument to the jury.
> There is more to this life than money.
Sure. But there's not much a civil lawsuit can ask outside of damages and reparations.
That was part of the SH families' lawyer final argument to the jury.
> There is more to this life than money.
Sure. But there's not much a civil lawsuit can ask outside of damages and reparations.
And yet seeing the case through to the end instead of taking the first offer has seen Infowars taken from Alex Jones. I don't speak for the families, but if I were in their shoes that would be far more valuable to me than maximizing my payout.
Alex Jones just created a new company and be shielded by Texas very protective laws against civil damages. So they accomplished nothing and will get barely nothing after legal costs.
Those Texas laws would only shield him in Texas courts. He can try to use a choice of forum clause in his terms of service to force lawsuits to take place in Texas but that only works with people who are subject to those terms of service.
Unless Jones manages to limit himself to telling lies about people who use his new company he will be open to lawsuits outside of Texas.
Unless Jones manages to limit himself to telling lies about people who use his new company he will be open to lawsuits outside of Texas.
I don't think the families wanted money. They wanted to ruin his life.
The NPR article conveys that this was more than just a very clever stunt
> "The Connecticut families agreed to forgo a portion of their recovery to increase the overall value of The Onion's bid, enabling its success," according to their lawyers. ... Jones was hoping a bidder ideologically aligned with him would have bought Infowars and hired him back to keep doing his show.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5189399/alex-jones-auct...
> "The Connecticut families agreed to forgo a portion of their recovery to increase the overall value of The Onion's bid, enabling its success," according to their lawyers. ... Jones was hoping a bidder ideologically aligned with him would have bought Infowars and hired him back to keep doing his show.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5189399/alex-jones-auct...
The "Global Tetrahedron" site already has an Infowars Web 1.0 slant, the Everytown for Gun Safety ads are great.
https://global-tetrahedron.com/
https://global-tetrahedron.com/
Have it look like the year 2000 infowars website.
https://web.archive.org/web/20000229143934/http://www.infowa...
https://web.archive.org/web/20000229143934/http://www.infowa...
Yeah, this seems like a clear-cut "We want justice, not money" decision. We don't know how much the families gave up (could be a little, could be significant), but whatever it was was the difference between Infowars remaining what it is or utterly destroying Infowars' credibility.
Because now the Wikipedia entry is going to say "parody site" at the top.
Because now the Wikipedia entry is going to say "parody site" at the top.
> We don't know how much the families gave up (could be a little, could be significant)
It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes but as a parent I can imagine the money not playing an important factor at all in this. Money would hopefully be the least of my worries.
It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes but as a parent I can imagine the money not playing an important factor at all in this. Money would hopefully be the least of my worries.
Jones owes them $1.5 billion. They're never going to see most of that judgement. They're likely giving up money they were never going to receive anyway.
My hunch is that the judge and everyone involved knows that they aren't going to get anything substantial from Jones, which is why they allowed them to use money they are owed from the judgement as part of the bid. It allows them to get something of value out of the ruling (or at least take something of value from Jones).
My hunch is that the judge and everyone involved knows that they aren't going to get anything substantial from Jones, which is why they allowed them to use money they are owed from the judgement as part of the bid. It allows them to get something of value out of the ruling (or at least take something of value from Jones).
> They're likely giving up money they were never going to receive anyway.
They're giving up money that a higher bidder would have paid for infowars. Essentially the difference between The Onion's bid, and the bid of whoever else would buy.
They're giving up money that a higher bidder would have paid for infowars. Essentially the difference between The Onion's bid, and the bid of whoever else would buy.
That is not going to be permitted by the judge or other bidders
They mean this is what _in practice_ they give up. In theory they can give up more, but this is the actual money difference from what they would have gotten otherwise in reality.
The judge in the case put the brakes on the sale after it was revealed that the bankruptcy trustee did not accept the highest bid, and instead allowed the Sandy Hook families to 'assist' by pledging their massive judgement towards the auction.
It isn't reasonable to pledge money they didn't have because the families aren't the only creditors of the estate. The rest of the creditors get a lower recovery if the assets are "sold" for the price of one group reducing their claim.
It isn't reasonable to pledge money they didn't have because the families aren't the only creditors of the estate. The rest of the creditors get a lower recovery if the assets are "sold" for the price of one group reducing their claim.
I'm a parent. I've woken up in a panic just because I had a bad dream that something bad happened to my kid.
If I were one of the Sandy Hook families, I don't know if anything in life would ever bring me true joy again. But contributing to this would make me smile a little.
If I were one of the Sandy Hook families, I don't know if anything in life would ever bring me true joy again. But contributing to this would make me smile a little.
[deleted]
LOL, it's already being updated...
"InfoWars was an American far-right[2] conspiracy theory[3] and fake news website[1] created by Alex Jones.[36][37] It was founded in 1999, and operated under Free Speech Systems LLC."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars
"InfoWars was an American far-right[2] conspiracy theory[3] and fake news website[1] created by Alex Jones.[36][37] It was founded in 1999, and operated under Free Speech Systems LLC."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars
It seems as if a win. However Alex Jones can just spin up another website and platform. It's the Internet, not a sandwich shop
>bought Infowars and hired him back to keep doing his show
So, if any, where's the value? In InfoWars, or with Jones? I.e., can't he just go into a new venture, or go onto someone's payroll?
So, if any, where's the value? In InfoWars, or with Jones? I.e., can't he just go into a new venture, or go onto someone's payroll?
Making life harder for Alex Jones, making him start again with nothing, is quite a satisfying thing to do for many counter-parties here.
What is hard? He can spin up a new YouTube channel in a day
This is actually one of the dumbest stunts I'd ever seen. InfoWars is nothing without Alex Jones. They've wasted all their money since Alex will start a new project and his viewership will move.
Oh no, far to the contrary, this is funny as hell. The fact that Alex Jones isn't there makes it even funnier.
And they got all of the stuff and the brands. The chemical brands, the infowars brands, all of it.
And they got all of the stuff and the brands. The chemical brands, the infowars brands, all of it.
First of all, a judge just overturned this thing, so I hope you're still laughing.
Secondly, if they really paid money for this, they're idiots because InfoWars is meaningless without Alex. He will just start "The Alex Jones Network" and recapture his audience.
All that said, I see that I got downvoted by woke idiots even though I don't even watch Alex Jones.
All that said, I see that I got downvoted by woke idiots even though I don't even watch Alex Jones.
It has been paused based on normal steps in bankruptcy proceedings[0].
> A court hearing is typically held after a bankruptcy auction to finalize the winning bids and sales, and to hear any objections, so the process in Jones's case hasn't strayed far from the usual — yet.
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/onion-infowars-court-1.7385221
Also try and cut out the name calling, especially when you're incorrect.
> A court hearing is typically held after a bankruptcy auction to finalize the winning bids and sales, and to hear any objections, so the process in Jones's case hasn't strayed far from the usual — yet.
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/onion-infowars-court-1.7385221
Also try and cut out the name calling, especially when you're incorrect.
When it comes to trusting the fake news outlet CBC or Alex Jones, I'd go with Jones on this one: https://x.com/glennbeck/status/1857529776866574769
Trusting Alex Jones is a bold strategy. And not one for anyone who has any media literacy, but you do you!
You seem to think that I care about the audience. It's funny because it's a puppeteer piloting the shambling corpse of Jones's products around to mock him. A constant reminder of his failure he'll see every day.
I don’t understand what you think they want out of this. They don’t want to keep infowars the way it was, nor are they trying to make money off of it. Do you think their goal was to buy it, keep it running without any changes, and keep extracting money from its previous audience?
There's tonnes of worthless merchandise and supplements of a dubious nature which The Onion, the least expected of all possible buyers, now has to find a use for. My first suggestion would be melting down all of the 500% marked up gold bars[0] and make a one-time-run charity auction collectible for the Sandy Hook families. Or upcycling all the paper in Alex Jones' books [1] into paper mache, and use it to make globes, to really stick it to the globalists!
[0] https://www.infowarsstore.com/24-karat-999-pure-gold-collect...
[1] https://www.infowarsstore.com/infowars-media/books/the-great...
[0] https://www.infowarsstore.com/24-karat-999-pure-gold-collect...
[1] https://www.infowarsstore.com/infowars-media/books/the-great...
> As for the vitamins and supplements, we are halting their sale immediately. Utilitarian logic dictates that if we can extend even one CEO’s life by 10 minutes, diluting these miracle elixirs for public consumption is an unethical waste. Instead, we plan to collect the entire stock of the InfoWars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents down into a single candy bar–sized omnivitamin that one executive (I will not name names) may eat in order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal.*
Funny, for sure, but does not explain what they will be doing in reality.
> On top of its journalistic pursuits, The Onion also owns and operates the majority of the world’s transoceanic shipping lanes, stands on the nation’s leading edge on matters of deforestation and strip mining, and proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily.
https://theonion.com/about-us/
https://theonion.com/about-us/
Ah, that explains it. They can test them on animals. Thanks!
No, that would be unethical, running the risk of healing the animals and helping them live longer lives without a high level of informed consent that only animals deserve.
They will instead receive a set of carefully designed nocebos.
The real supplements will be shipped needy areas in developing countries and then strategically withheld from anyone that desires them.
They will instead receive a set of carefully designed nocebos.
The real supplements will be shipped needy areas in developing countries and then strategically withheld from anyone that desires them.
They probably don't want to be in the business of selling unregulated, scammy, and potentially dangerous goods. They might destroy the merch. Who knows.
I'd assume destroy, maybe keep a bit for novelty value. Like, they're not going to resell it, you'd assume.
There were a bunch of suggestions on the bluesky thread that they should donate samples of them to researchers so that they could figure out what was actually in the fucking things.
That, or you didn't take them seriously enough. Bring me the candy bar!
> melting down all of the 500% marked up gold bars[0] and make a one-time-run charity auction collectible for the Sandy Hook families
Or a monument / memorial to the deceased, in the hopes that the truth would outlive Jones's lies.
Or a monument / memorial to the deceased, in the hopes that the truth would outlive Jones's lies.
InfoWars only shilled for gold sellers. Their business was entirely Vitamins/Supplement, Merch, and crazy AFAIK they never sold gold directly.
And the flat earthers.
Phenomenal point!
I don't know man, it's not like the dude caused the Sandy Hook massacre, just take this win and let the victims rest in peace. Let the Onion do it's things and cut ties.
And pocket the money from the gold bars? Probably better to donate them anyway, better yet to give it back to victims involved in his lies
> supplements of a dubious nature
They are re-labled existing products that are sold in other places, and unironically already-recognized, before being re-labled by InfoWars, as very high quality.
If you're gonna criticize InfoWars you have my 100% support in your right to do so, but try not to post out of your ass. This is HackerNews, not Reddit.
They are re-labled existing products that are sold in other places, and unironically already-recognized, before being re-labled by InfoWars, as very high quality.
If you're gonna criticize InfoWars you have my 100% support in your right to do so, but try not to post out of your ass. This is HackerNews, not Reddit.
There was a past disclosure where lead was found[0] within an in-house product. Buzzfeed did a story about sending some products to a lab and you're right they're safe existing products[1] only with Infowars' own exaggerated marketing labeled on.
[0] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/notices/2017-02319.pd...
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-a...
[0] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/notices/2017-02319.pd...
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-a...
Can you give an example of these high-quality supplements? Otherwise folks just have to take you at your word that they exist.
Honest question: are we talking about penis size supplements? Wondering if there is a joke going right over my head
>> make a one-time-run charity auction collectible for the Sandy Hook families
They've got $1.5billion. Probably don't need the gold as well. There might be equally valid causes with less funds.
They've got $1.5billion. Probably don't need the gold as well. There might be equally valid causes with less funds.
They have a claim for $1.5B, they are going after all Alex Jones assets which are much less than $1.5B.
Don’t forget their many other successful lawsuits:
- school administration
- rifle manufacturer
- the shooters mother (home insurance)
- other journalists who wrote about the event
I don’t know exactly what compensation they should get, but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy.
- school administration
- rifle manufacturer
- the shooters mother (home insurance)
- other journalists who wrote about the event
I don’t know exactly what compensation they should get, but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy.
To be specific, the suit against the mother was against the mother's estate, since the mother was murdered by the shooter... like right away. The suit was settled by the estate.
The suit against the school administration was eventually dismissed (the families lost on appeal) (https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Two-Sandy-Hook-famili...). I agree it seemed kinda dubious, and I think the right outcome happened here.
The suit against Remington ended in a settlement, probably because Remington didn't want a chance in hell to set any legal precedent. The fact that the families got settlements is really a symptom of how unsettled the issue of gun control is in America. Like it's completely inane that it's fully legal to manufacture and sell AR-15 rifles to basically anyone, BUT that somehow marketing them to civilians is inappropriate. Remington settled because they just don't want any possibility of the status quo moving against them.
The suit against the school administration was eventually dismissed (the families lost on appeal) (https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Two-Sandy-Hook-famili...). I agree it seemed kinda dubious, and I think the right outcome happened here.
The suit against Remington ended in a settlement, probably because Remington didn't want a chance in hell to set any legal precedent. The fact that the families got settlements is really a symptom of how unsettled the issue of gun control is in America. Like it's completely inane that it's fully legal to manufacture and sell AR-15 rifles to basically anyone, BUT that somehow marketing them to civilians is inappropriate. Remington settled because they just don't want any possibility of the status quo moving against them.
AR-15 is merely a body style, there is no metric by which it is more dangerous than a hunting rifle.
If you want to murder dozens you do not bring a hunting rifle.
If you want to start some shit ask gun people whether you can hunt deer with 5.56
Only for the larp value. What attributes make it more dangerous?
This is not even remotely true. I have done a decent amount of shooting, some dedicated training, and own multiple firearms of different types including AR style rifles. Your sort of rhetoric is at best disingenuous and not even remotely true.
If you have ever trained with any rifle you will quickly realize that while there are hunting oriented semi-automatic rifles out there, the minimized recoil, the high rate of fire, the lightweight nature, and all the ergonomic accessories make AR style rifles incredibly fast and easy to shoot. Using a red dot site you can fire two rounds to the chest and one to the head at 25 yards in under 2 seconds with a small amount practice and training. Minimally trained people can do the same with iron sites in under 3.
I am a big fan of the AR platform because of these reasons. They are not unique to the AR, but they are unique to a class of gun that is designed with these characteristics in mind. These are not the characteristics of hunting rifles.
Honesty is important, even if it works against your beliefs!
If you have ever trained with any rifle you will quickly realize that while there are hunting oriented semi-automatic rifles out there, the minimized recoil, the high rate of fire, the lightweight nature, and all the ergonomic accessories make AR style rifles incredibly fast and easy to shoot. Using a red dot site you can fire two rounds to the chest and one to the head at 25 yards in under 2 seconds with a small amount practice and training. Minimally trained people can do the same with iron sites in under 3.
I am a big fan of the AR platform because of these reasons. They are not unique to the AR, but they are unique to a class of gun that is designed with these characteristics in mind. These are not the characteristics of hunting rifles.
Honesty is important, even if it works against your beliefs!
> I don’t know exactly what compensation they should get, but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy.
I don't know if it's healthy or sustainable, but it definitely sounds healthier than ignoring the tragedy altogether.
I don't know if it's healthy or sustainable, but it definitely sounds healthier than ignoring the tragedy altogether.
Agreed. It doesn't seem like a long-term solution, but it is the best way we have _right now_ to visit consequences on people/orgs that enabled the tragedy. If our society sees everything in cost/benefit, then increasing the costs of actions that lead to tragedies like this is one of the best things we can do.
Suing into bankruptcy is the only flavor of capital punishment we have for corporations.
> people/orgs that enabled the tragedy
They didn’t though. Holding a rifle manufacturer liable for a shooting makes no sense, unless applied universally.
A journalist writing a book did not cause the shooting.
This is greed and lashing out in pain. I’m sure members of the community have ruined their life in pursuit of these things.
They didn’t though. Holding a rifle manufacturer liable for a shooting makes no sense, unless applied universally.
A journalist writing a book did not cause the shooting.
This is greed and lashing out in pain. I’m sure members of the community have ruined their life in pursuit of these things.
They did, if even indirectly. Just like how McDonald's holds some responsibility for the obesity epidemic.
The company that makes rifles makes them to be sold. It is in the company's best interest that as many mass shootings happen as possible. By providing guns, they DID contribute to the tragedy. We can tell, because if they had never produced that gun then it would've never shot anyone.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that the reason gun laws are so lax is because these companies lobby for it to be so. Again, they are incentivized to cause as many people to die as possible. Incentives matter. If mass shootings were the next blue jeans, these companies would quickly overthrow Apple.
Blame is very hard and tricky, but any institution or system in place is responsible for an intuitional failure. And that's what mass shootings are - an institutional failure.
The company that makes rifles makes them to be sold. It is in the company's best interest that as many mass shootings happen as possible. By providing guns, they DID contribute to the tragedy. We can tell, because if they had never produced that gun then it would've never shot anyone.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that the reason gun laws are so lax is because these companies lobby for it to be so. Again, they are incentivized to cause as many people to die as possible. Incentives matter. If mass shootings were the next blue jeans, these companies would quickly overthrow Apple.
Blame is very hard and tricky, but any institution or system in place is responsible for an intuitional failure. And that's what mass shootings are - an institutional failure.
The case against Remington was largely based on how the gun was marketed.
No. I actually don’t think lashing out at any wallet that happens to be in the area will make anyone happy.
The people who are responsible are dead.
The people who are responsible are dead.
Depends on the wallets being lashed at
Sounds like a principled take based on rule of law.
A healthy & sustainable way would probably be to do something about school shootings in the only country where they happen on a regular basis.
In the absence of that, what else would you propose?
In the absence of that, what else would you propose?
> what else would you propose?
Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back.
Maybe the government could have offered education and employment guarantees to the families?
> only country
Want to list some other things only the US has?
Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back.
Maybe the government could have offered education and employment guarantees to the families?
> only country
Want to list some other things only the US has?
> Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back.
> Maybe the government could have offered education and employment guarantees to the families?
The lawsuit wasn't about responsibility or compensation for the school shooting. It was about the years of harassment and death threats that the families of those killed had to endure from people who believed the lies that Alex Jones repeatedly told about them.
> Maybe the government could have offered education and employment guarantees to the families?
The lawsuit wasn't about responsibility or compensation for the school shooting. It was about the years of harassment and death threats that the families of those killed had to endure from people who believed the lies that Alex Jones repeatedly told about them.
You’re missing context. We are discussing their 5+ other lawsuits.
> Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back.
How about not slandering the parents of the victims causing Jones' followers harass and threaten them? He could have admitted he was wrong (which he only did finally at trial and under oath - far too late), but chose to double down. What about that misery?
Jones is not a victim here. He chose greed, but got owned. The motives of the families, lawyers, etc are whataboutism at best. You're essentially arguing that if somebody throws a punch at another person, said person has no right to hit back because hitting back won't take away your black eye.
How about not slandering the parents of the victims causing Jones' followers harass and threaten them? He could have admitted he was wrong (which he only did finally at trial and under oath - far too late), but chose to double down. What about that misery?
Jones is not a victim here. He chose greed, but got owned. The motives of the families, lawyers, etc are whataboutism at best. You're essentially arguing that if somebody throws a punch at another person, said person has no right to hit back because hitting back won't take away your black eye.
> but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy
I don't know, this, to me, is the proper set of incentives. Nobody wants to lose money, so you better do everything you can to prevent these tragedies. If we just sob a little and move on, the systems in place will not change.
I don't know, this, to me, is the proper set of incentives. Nobody wants to lose money, so you better do everything you can to prevent these tragedies. If we just sob a little and move on, the systems in place will not change.
I guarantee you these do not add up to a billion dollars.
Wikipedia page disagrees with you. Whether they collected that amount, I do not know.
They've got $1.5billion.
No, they've got a judgement on paper for $1.5 billion. This is part of the process of actually getting that money.
No, they've got a judgement on paper for $1.5 billion. This is part of the process of actually getting that money.
I had the goldbugs and silver bugs in mind- they'd be more than willing to pay exorbitant markup, with the feel-good ennui of it going towards a good cause. These were $100 for a 1/10 gram at the time of writing and now are sold out. Coincidence???
Referring to Jones as "...the hapless owner of InfoWars (a forgettable man with an already-forgotten name)..." in the announcement is a masterstroke given Jones' ridiculous ego.
I hope Jones is never named on the new site, but frequently and flagrantly referenced in a manner like this.
I hope Jones is never named on the new site, but frequently and flagrantly referenced in a manner like this.
I hope for the opposite, Jones has so much video and audio content available cloning him digitally and shoving an AI generated fist, ahem, somewhere, and using his likeness as the satire would be cathartic. Better yet he himself argued in court that the person live on Info Wars is a character inseparable from the brand.
Isn't that illegal? If it isn't, it may become so in the near future as many legislations are working on it.
Satire is protected in the US and many other countries, but "cloning" a person using AI implies that it makes difficult to distinguish between the real person and the clone. I guess it can pass if it is obvious that it is indeed satire, but that would be risky.
Maybe it could be remediated by having him wear a clown hat or something.
Satire is protected in the US and many other countries, but "cloning" a person using AI implies that it makes difficult to distinguish between the real person and the clone. I guess it can pass if it is obvious that it is indeed satire, but that would be risky.
Maybe it could be remediated by having him wear a clown hat or something.
I don't think it would be in this case. It's possible his likeness will be included in the sale due to him claiming he played a character on infowars.
I love the idea that the character and likeness would be Infowars' IP and went with the sale. That claim he made during the custody proceedings, about playing a character, should definitely come back to bite him in the ass.
They should make a video of Jones actually eating his neighbors.
This has been my thought all along. Drown out his real stuff with AI generated slop. Slop him.
I hate to burst everyone’s bubble, but this is fake news. This deal is not final. The judge in the liquidation case is holding an evidentiary hearing next week to understand how and why secret bidding was set up and why it was not open to the general public. Sounds like a BIG loss for The Onion, not to mention the potential defamation cases that could arise from news outlets publishing an unverified story about a sale that isn’t final.
Source: https://x.com/behizytweets/status/1857195724242329997
Source: https://x.com/behizytweets/status/1857195724242329997
It's not fake news. The onion did indeed win the auction.
What remains to be seen is if the sandyhook parents are allowed to forego some of their claim against Jones to secure the purchase, which frankly I can't see why they couldn't.
The auction is there to settle Jones' debts and some of his largest debtors are willing to release some of his nondischargeable debt for Infowars.
He owes some of the family's 100 million dollars. The next highest bid was 3.5 million. The sandyhook families have the leverage particularly in this case.
Oh, and not for nothing, the second place bidder was the guy running Jones' new supplement company which mysteriously has 3.5 million to burn after being open for about a month.
What remains to be seen is if the sandyhook parents are allowed to forego some of their claim against Jones to secure the purchase, which frankly I can't see why they couldn't.
The auction is there to settle Jones' debts and some of his largest debtors are willing to release some of his nondischargeable debt for Infowars.
He owes some of the family's 100 million dollars. The next highest bid was 3.5 million. The sandyhook families have the leverage particularly in this case.
Oh, and not for nothing, the second place bidder was the guy running Jones' new supplement company which mysteriously has 3.5 million to burn after being open for about a month.
The onion did not win the auction. The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. The judge is going to toss that out. Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order.
Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
> The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest.
We do not know what the onion's bid was. We only have what Jones says it was. Until the actual hearing happens the exact details of what the onion offered are unknown. We do know they worked with the sandy hook parents and it stands to reason that they are leveraging their outstanding debts against jones to fund the purchase.
The ONLY source of the "it was a lower bid" is known liar Alex Jones. Who also spent the entire day yesterday talking about how the democrats were going to storm his building to evict him. Only to later meekly walk out of the building when he realized that wasn't going to happen.
> The judge is going to toss that out.
Maybe, depends on what is found in the evidentiary hearing. Sort of the point of such a hearing, to get everyone in the room and crack open what happened and why.
But I have 2 bits of cold water for the Jones narrative of "the deep state democrats" treating him unfairly.
1. The trustee is a professional receiver court appointed. Meaning they are unlikely to have tried to "fuck" over Jones (That'd screw them out of future receiverships).
2. The company that ran the auction does it professionally. They are unlikely to have to have done the deep state's bidding just to screw over Jones. That would impact their ability to run future auctions. Further, the auctioneers earn money based on the final sale price which would doubly hurt them in the case that the trustee ended up accepting a lower bid.
> Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order.
I got news for you, Jones says that about every single court case or action against him that doesn't go his way. It's always a secret enemy that's out to screw him or silence him. That's because that narrative allows him to sell more sea algae.
> Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
If it's found that there were major problems with the auction, the most likely outcome is the auction will simply be reran with a new auction house and a new trustee. If there were such major problems with the way things were done, it's highly unlikely that just letting the results of the last auction stand will be good enough. After all, were their other bidders excluded by the auction house? Was there really a transparency issue? If an auction was ran counter to a court order, you throw out the results and redo.
We do not know what the onion's bid was. We only have what Jones says it was. Until the actual hearing happens the exact details of what the onion offered are unknown. We do know they worked with the sandy hook parents and it stands to reason that they are leveraging their outstanding debts against jones to fund the purchase.
The ONLY source of the "it was a lower bid" is known liar Alex Jones. Who also spent the entire day yesterday talking about how the democrats were going to storm his building to evict him. Only to later meekly walk out of the building when he realized that wasn't going to happen.
> The judge is going to toss that out.
Maybe, depends on what is found in the evidentiary hearing. Sort of the point of such a hearing, to get everyone in the room and crack open what happened and why.
But I have 2 bits of cold water for the Jones narrative of "the deep state democrats" treating him unfairly.
1. The trustee is a professional receiver court appointed. Meaning they are unlikely to have tried to "fuck" over Jones (That'd screw them out of future receiverships).
2. The company that ran the auction does it professionally. They are unlikely to have to have done the deep state's bidding just to screw over Jones. That would impact their ability to run future auctions. Further, the auctioneers earn money based on the final sale price which would doubly hurt them in the case that the trustee ended up accepting a lower bid.
> Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order.
I got news for you, Jones says that about every single court case or action against him that doesn't go his way. It's always a secret enemy that's out to screw him or silence him. That's because that narrative allows him to sell more sea algae.
> Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
If it's found that there were major problems with the auction, the most likely outcome is the auction will simply be reran with a new auction house and a new trustee. If there were such major problems with the way things were done, it's highly unlikely that just letting the results of the last auction stand will be good enough. After all, were their other bidders excluded by the auction house? Was there really a transparency issue? If an auction was ran counter to a court order, you throw out the results and redo.
"At a court hearing Thursday afternoon in Houston, the trustee who oversaw the auction, Christopher Murray, acknowledged that The Onion did not have the highest bid but said it was a better deal overall because some of the Sandy Hook families agreed to forgo a portion of the sale proceeds to pay Jones’ other creditors."
https://apnews.com/article/onion-buys-infowars-alex-jones-64...
https://apnews.com/article/onion-buys-infowars-alex-jones-64...
Right, so if The Onion bid $2.5M and the Sandy hook families said "Our portion of that $2.5M will be forgiven and it will pay for the other creditors" Then Jones' debt would have been reduce by ~$5M instead of the $3.5M of the other bidder.
Now, it is possible that the onion only bid $1.75M in which case there might be something to the claim. But, I doubt that's the case.
Now, it is possible that the onion only bid $1.75M in which case there might be something to the claim. But, I doubt that's the case.
I just posted that to communicate that there are reliable sources, not just Jones, that say the Onion bid was lower.
Fair enough. I was unaware the trustee had publicly said the bid was lower.
I did, however, want to flush out exactly what sort of math the trustee would be doing in this case to justify taking the lower bid.
I did, however, want to flush out exactly what sort of math the trustee would be doing in this case to justify taking the lower bid.
I'm not going to speculate on what the trustee's motivations may have been, but according to the reports we have so far, no public auction was held. Since apparently there were only 2 bidders, it's most likely going to the actual highest bidder. It would be highly prejudicial to hold 'another' auction, as now we know what the original bids were.
Jones is alleging the DOJ has been orchestrating this from behind the scenes. We'll see what's going on once Trump takes office.
Jones is alleging the DOJ has been orchestrating this from behind the scenes. We'll see what's going on once Trump takes office.
> but according to the reports we have so far
Reports from who? The auction, especially with the media coverage of the auction, was very public and publicly listed [1]. The bidding was sealed and under an NDA, which is exactly what you'd want when selling such a controversial property.
> Since apparently there were only 2 bidders, it's most likely going to the actual highest bidder. It would be highly prejudicial to hold 'another' auction, as now we know what the original bids were.
Prejudicial to who? And again, we do not know what the original bids were. We know what one of the original bids was and not the other because of the aforementioned NDA.
> Jones is alleging the DOJ has been orchestrating this from behind the scenes. We'll see what's going on once Trump takes office.
Jones also alleged that nobody died at sandy hook. He alleged, on multiple occasions, that the parents of dead children were crisis actors working for demons. He also alleged that the democrats would steal the election and that the DOJ/CIA/FBI/CDC/FEMA/etc were all planning a coop. Jones alleges a lot of shit. Why do you believe him?
His MO is to say 10000 lies and then whenever anything in reality comes anywhere close to 1 of his lies, he brags that it is absolutely proof that he's correct about everything. He's literally predicted that Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, and Clinton would be assassinated. He's predicts riots and civil unrest every year. Every single time there's a mass shooting event he calls it a false flag.
I urge you to think critically about this. For starters, what exactly would the DOJ do in his lawsuits? Let's assume that Jones' claim is correct and the CIA/FBI/NSA/DHS/DEA all got together to go after him.
1. Do you believe that the DOJ somehow strong armed not only the 2 Judges of his case, but also the appellate judges and the supreme court judges who have each ruled against him on appeal?
2. Do you believe the DOJ somehow strong armed the 2 juries against Jones? And do you believe after that strong arm those Jury members decided to stay quiet?
3. And if you believe both of those things, why do you believe that Trump can somehow make a difference here? How can you believe that a DOJ with enough power to literally strong arm the supreme court is going to just roll over for Trump?
4. Do you believe that the DOJ somehow managed to fully cover all of this up, yet somehow the one person who figured it all out was the alcoholic Alex Jones? The very target of the conspiracy? There was no other corroboration?
And one further thing to consider. The lawsuits against Alex Jones started in 2018, very much while Trump was president. Why do you believe that Trump would be the person to "get to the bottom of this" when if we believe Jones, it was Trumps DOJ plotting against him.
[1] https://360assetadvisors.com/events/fssmh/
Reports from who? The auction, especially with the media coverage of the auction, was very public and publicly listed [1]. The bidding was sealed and under an NDA, which is exactly what you'd want when selling such a controversial property.
> Since apparently there were only 2 bidders, it's most likely going to the actual highest bidder. It would be highly prejudicial to hold 'another' auction, as now we know what the original bids were.
Prejudicial to who? And again, we do not know what the original bids were. We know what one of the original bids was and not the other because of the aforementioned NDA.
> Jones is alleging the DOJ has been orchestrating this from behind the scenes. We'll see what's going on once Trump takes office.
Jones also alleged that nobody died at sandy hook. He alleged, on multiple occasions, that the parents of dead children were crisis actors working for demons. He also alleged that the democrats would steal the election and that the DOJ/CIA/FBI/CDC/FEMA/etc were all planning a coop. Jones alleges a lot of shit. Why do you believe him?
His MO is to say 10000 lies and then whenever anything in reality comes anywhere close to 1 of his lies, he brags that it is absolutely proof that he's correct about everything. He's literally predicted that Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, and Clinton would be assassinated. He's predicts riots and civil unrest every year. Every single time there's a mass shooting event he calls it a false flag.
I urge you to think critically about this. For starters, what exactly would the DOJ do in his lawsuits? Let's assume that Jones' claim is correct and the CIA/FBI/NSA/DHS/DEA all got together to go after him.
1. Do you believe that the DOJ somehow strong armed not only the 2 Judges of his case, but also the appellate judges and the supreme court judges who have each ruled against him on appeal?
2. Do you believe the DOJ somehow strong armed the 2 juries against Jones? And do you believe after that strong arm those Jury members decided to stay quiet?
3. And if you believe both of those things, why do you believe that Trump can somehow make a difference here? How can you believe that a DOJ with enough power to literally strong arm the supreme court is going to just roll over for Trump?
4. Do you believe that the DOJ somehow managed to fully cover all of this up, yet somehow the one person who figured it all out was the alcoholic Alex Jones? The very target of the conspiracy? There was no other corroboration?
And one further thing to consider. The lawsuits against Alex Jones started in 2018, very much while Trump was president. Why do you believe that Trump would be the person to "get to the bottom of this" when if we believe Jones, it was Trumps DOJ plotting against him.
[1] https://360assetadvisors.com/events/fssmh/
You're relying on this 'strong arm' point, which I don't attempt to make. The DOJ could certainly be orchestrating the civil suit, eg, their attorneys help put together the suit and coordinate with the plaintiffs.
We know the government has conspired against Americans to prohibit 'misinformation' on social media, why would this be any different, when the censorship regime considers Jones public enemy #1? We'll find out the full extent once Trump takes office.
As far as the judges, rulings, juries, etc in the civil suit, I'm not up to date on all the facts, but Jones alleges foul play, that he was found in default because they asked him to produce non-existent items. Reporting on both sides of the issue are very partisan and surface-level, so it's unclear what actually transpired for Jones to be found in default.
I don't know the venue off-hand, but if it was in CT, then the judges and jury would be 100% partisan. That places is almost as far-left as California. Judges and juries in Texas or Florida would likely result in a much different outcome.
According to Jones, the first trustee in the bankruptcy was fired by the judge for misconduct.
We know the government has conspired against Americans to prohibit 'misinformation' on social media, why would this be any different, when the censorship regime considers Jones public enemy #1? We'll find out the full extent once Trump takes office.
As far as the judges, rulings, juries, etc in the civil suit, I'm not up to date on all the facts, but Jones alleges foul play, that he was found in default because they asked him to produce non-existent items. Reporting on both sides of the issue are very partisan and surface-level, so it's unclear what actually transpired for Jones to be found in default.
I don't know the venue off-hand, but if it was in CT, then the judges and jury would be 100% partisan. That places is almost as far-left as California. Judges and juries in Texas or Florida would likely result in a much different outcome.
According to Jones, the first trustee in the bankruptcy was fired by the judge for misconduct.
> We know the government has conspired against Americans to prohibit 'misinformation' on social media
That "conspiracy" was the US government asking media platforms not to share covid misinformation. The "shock" of it was literally just the gov sending out "Hey, could you please limit this?". Not a court order, not a "we'll take you down if you don't" just a "Hey, please take this down". Something that every gov admin has done (and many non-US govs do).
> when the censorship regime considers Jones public enemy #1
Jones is public enemy #1 according to jones. He's wildly irreverent in both left and rightwing media.
> I'm not up to date on all the facts, but Jones alleges foul play, that he was found in default because they asked him to produce non-existent items.
Hey, before you take Jones' word for why he was defaulted, perhaps actually get up to date on the facts. Perhaps, look into them not from what Jones says but read the facts for yourself.
I have to point out that you are rushing to defend someone without actually knowing why they are in the mess they are in.
> so it's unclear what actually transpired for Jones to be found in default.
No, it's not. There are actually public records and court docs for why he was defaulted. It's not a "left right" thing.
It's only unclear because apparently your only source for what transpired is Jones himself.
You can see for yourself the kind of garbage Free speech systems was trying to pull in the depositions [1]. Mind you, this is not the first or only deposition with a corporate representative. They were given a list of topics to prepare for and they did the deposition multiple times because the Court had to instruct them, multiple times "Prepare for these topics and questions, this is what due diligence looks like".
The answers in the video are literally "Who did you ask about this" nobody. "What did you do to prepare for this" nothing. "Did you know I was going to ask this" yes.
That sort of "I'm not playing your game" action from Jones and co is exactly why they got defaulted.
> I don't know the venue off-hand, but if it was in CT, then the judges and jury would be 100% partisan.
Jones was defaulted in both CT and TX. Two different cases, two different judges, two different juries. But he played exactly the same games and lost the same way.
> Judges and juries in Texas or Florida would likely result in a much different outcome.
Found guilty in Texas. Again, maybe familiarize yourself with what he did before defending him.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maDRIkdPAko
That "conspiracy" was the US government asking media platforms not to share covid misinformation. The "shock" of it was literally just the gov sending out "Hey, could you please limit this?". Not a court order, not a "we'll take you down if you don't" just a "Hey, please take this down". Something that every gov admin has done (and many non-US govs do).
> when the censorship regime considers Jones public enemy #1
Jones is public enemy #1 according to jones. He's wildly irreverent in both left and rightwing media.
> I'm not up to date on all the facts, but Jones alleges foul play, that he was found in default because they asked him to produce non-existent items.
Hey, before you take Jones' word for why he was defaulted, perhaps actually get up to date on the facts. Perhaps, look into them not from what Jones says but read the facts for yourself.
I have to point out that you are rushing to defend someone without actually knowing why they are in the mess they are in.
> so it's unclear what actually transpired for Jones to be found in default.
No, it's not. There are actually public records and court docs for why he was defaulted. It's not a "left right" thing.
It's only unclear because apparently your only source for what transpired is Jones himself.
You can see for yourself the kind of garbage Free speech systems was trying to pull in the depositions [1]. Mind you, this is not the first or only deposition with a corporate representative. They were given a list of topics to prepare for and they did the deposition multiple times because the Court had to instruct them, multiple times "Prepare for these topics and questions, this is what due diligence looks like".
The answers in the video are literally "Who did you ask about this" nobody. "What did you do to prepare for this" nothing. "Did you know I was going to ask this" yes.
That sort of "I'm not playing your game" action from Jones and co is exactly why they got defaulted.
> I don't know the venue off-hand, but if it was in CT, then the judges and jury would be 100% partisan.
Jones was defaulted in both CT and TX. Two different cases, two different judges, two different juries. But he played exactly the same games and lost the same way.
> Judges and juries in Texas or Florida would likely result in a much different outcome.
Found guilty in Texas. Again, maybe familiarize yourself with what he did before defending him.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maDRIkdPAko
do you have a source other than a tweet from the Twitter account of a political hack?
I posted the full audio of the 14 Nov 2024 hearing with the bankruptcy judge so you can hear all sides of the story, and the judge's reaction. Apologies it's on the Tweeter/Xitter.
https://x.com/magazedia/status/1857962924762898502
https://x.com/magazedia/status/1857962924762898502
I read your comment with skepticism but it looks like you are correct. Very odd that they would publish this story so prematurely.
Odd but not surprising. There are political implications so any press is good press.
Their bubble revels in sadistic glee at the pain and humiliation of a man that they hate for reasons that they do not understand themselves. Their bubble deserves to be burst.
I doubt you'd call it "fake news" if a corporate acquisition was announced, just because the deal hadn't yet passed regulatory approval.
But then again, you clearly seem to have a dog in this fight.
But then again, you clearly seem to have a dog in this fight.
Announcing something that hasn't happened yet makes it false.
The correctly should be something like "The Onion is attempting to buy Infowars"
The correctly should be something like "The Onion is attempting to buy Infowars"
Right, but one wonders why the parent commenter is not gleefully commenting about "fake news" on all of these articles: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google+buys
This seems to be a notable story and doesn't need nakedly partisan hair-splitting.
This seems to be a notable story and doesn't need nakedly partisan hair-splitting.
[deleted]
Where's the defamation?
The plot thickens...
The onion should just keep Alex Jones without any filters but put the onion logo on every page. The joke is already good enough, just keep it going.
The Onion already did that joke: https://theonion.com/sale-of-bet-to-white-supremacist-group-...
Sources: Hackers Vandalized Drudge Report For Last 15 Years
https://theonion.com/sources-hackers-vandalized-drudge-repor...
https://theonion.com/sources-hackers-vandalized-drudge-repor...
Not a good idea, Alex Jones is a big reason for the hate against people like Anthony Fauci.
Idk I think the global events of 2020 to 2022 had a bigger effect on public opinion than fringe lunatics like Alex Jones.
Anthony Fauci is a big reason for the hate against people like Anthony Fauci.
> His advice was frequently contradicted by Trump, and Trump's supporters alleged that Fauci was trying to politically undermine Trump's run for reelection
- Wikipedia
Seems like a nice fellow
- Wikipedia
Seems like a nice fellow
I really can’t imagine a better steward. Truly amazing. I doubt there’s any way to undo all the damage that has been done, but at least we’ll get some cathartic laughs out of it all.
I actually almost fainted laughing when I read this and then some of the coping responses on X. I needed this today. What a good move.
> I really can’t imagine a better steward.
You're probably right. But here's my alternates list:
- The Simpsons writing team
- Jimmy Kimmel (maybe)
- Conan O'Brien
- Stephen Colbert
- a deep fake of Alex Jones, scripted by a bunch of giggling 6th grade boys
You're probably right. But here's my alternates list:
- The Simpsons writing team
- Jimmy Kimmel (maybe)
- Conan O'Brien
- Stephen Colbert
- a deep fake of Alex Jones, scripted by a bunch of giggling 6th grade boys
Jeff Lawson the founder of Twilio owns The Onion, glad he's growing his quality retirement project.
He seems to be doing a better job running a newspaper than Bezos.
I bet they sell fewer fraudulent merchandise than Bezos too
[deleted]
[deleted]
definitely printing fewer lies in the newspaper than Bezos
What “lies” is Bezos printing? AFAIK the only influence he had was pulling the endorsement for president.
[deleted]
how did it feel when Saudi Arabia stole your handle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neom
heh, I've been using neom online for over 20 years, when they announced the city people I knew from the early 2000s emailed me ha. mine is from my original irc name neomonk.
Infowars Sale to Onion Questioned by Bankruptcy Judge: https://archive.is/i3KQZ
EDIT: the sale been blocked, Alex Jones is still live as of this edit (NOV 15th 12:28 EST)
EDIT: the sale been blocked, Alex Jones is still live as of this edit (NOV 15th 12:28 EST)
Is Alex Jones the new Press Secretary yet?
The next 4 years are going to be an absolute farce in the US.
You don’t think a fox news host is a great SecDef? Or a non-practicing briefly disbarred AG?
Tbf successfully avoiding prosecution for white collar crime is a credential in understanding the law, sorta...
We will see how the confirmation goes.
Seriously stop. He’s a decorated combat veteran with 20 years in the military and two Ivy League degrees.
He absolutely has not been “in” for 20 years. Someone will publish his actual record between active duty, active reserve, and inactive reserve. He was in the National Guard as a basic infantry officer. No ranger tab, no SF, hell not even airborne, so let’s stop acting like he’s a badass. He’s perfectly qualified for leading a company-sized unit. That’s it.
He has, in aggregate, around 4-5 years of experience as a junior officer. Most of his time is IRR which has ~zero [1] obligations and is basically just a higher priority draft list for former military.
I know you know all of this, of course, and you’re either defending him in bad faith or pure ignorance, so I’m mostly replying for the benefit of others.
[1] https://ec.militarytimes.com/guard-reserve-handbook/joining-...
He has, in aggregate, around 4-5 years of experience as a junior officer. Most of his time is IRR which has ~zero [1] obligations and is basically just a higher priority draft list for former military.
I know you know all of this, of course, and you’re either defending him in bad faith or pure ignorance, so I’m mostly replying for the benefit of others.
[1] https://ec.militarytimes.com/guard-reserve-handbook/joining-...
Indeed. As concerning as this appointment is the US should worry more about where Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock are appointed.
Wondering if that's what Mike Judge is waiting for: free inspiration enough for a 12 season long "Idiocracy: the series".
I don't know if I need a documentary of the times I'm living through.
Looking from abroad some folk have the impression that the previous four years were. They were a triumph?
The US has recovered from inflation better than practically any other country. Yes, the last 4 years have been far, far better than trump's first term by any measure you care to mention, except maybe hate, lies and fear.
I’m not a Trump supporter but clearly inflation was worse during Biden than Trump, that’s just a fact. So your claim that it’s on “any measure” is wrong.
Fiscal policy was used to ensure we didn't all starve during the pandemic, and that 2024 didn't do it's best 1928 impersonation. Was inflation worse? Of course. The conditions and context of either presidency aren't even close.
What do you think Biden did to cause inflation? What specifically did he do to cause food prices to rise? Please be specific. Your claim requires at least some thought put in to explain it, not just "prices high, Biden bad".
[deleted]
The money printing started in 2020 under Trump's watch, so if we're going to blame U.S. presidents for inflating prices (?) then it follows that Biden gets credit for the recovery.
Biden wins on inflation, real wage growth, illegal immigration, and international military conflict?
At the time the news of the Sandy Hook shooting broke, I was a highschooler in a vo-tech school in Connecticut.
Friday in late December are usually unserious days in K-12! People had their sights set on winter break and work was thin. But I remember that day had a lot of commotion, a lot of seriousness, and then a lot of silence.
Being a vo-tech school, we had students from all over the state. Some kids left or were taken out early, some of them having had ties to the families in Newtown. Throughout the day, our school got emptier and emptier.
A lot of students didn't return to the building for the whole week or so until winter break started. Even though the seriousness weaned over the days, there was an unbreakable eeriness that just comes with the building being so sparsely populated. Our highschool was a small one (about 400 students total) which exacerbated it.
I lived with my parents at the time and I saw my mom gradually become a Sandy Hook "truther" as she fell deep down Facebook rabbitholes. It was bad. Although she eventually came around, that created distance between us that never recovered.
There's a lot of bad and mind-boggling news abound, but this is a very personally satisfying headline.
Friday in late December are usually unserious days in K-12! People had their sights set on winter break and work was thin. But I remember that day had a lot of commotion, a lot of seriousness, and then a lot of silence.
Being a vo-tech school, we had students from all over the state. Some kids left or were taken out early, some of them having had ties to the families in Newtown. Throughout the day, our school got emptier and emptier.
A lot of students didn't return to the building for the whole week or so until winter break started. Even though the seriousness weaned over the days, there was an unbreakable eeriness that just comes with the building being so sparsely populated. Our highschool was a small one (about 400 students total) which exacerbated it.
I lived with my parents at the time and I saw my mom gradually become a Sandy Hook "truther" as she fell deep down Facebook rabbitholes. It was bad. Although she eventually came around, that created distance between us that never recovered.
There's a lot of bad and mind-boggling news abound, but this is a very personally satisfying headline.
Thanks for sharing. Watching your mom deteriorate like that must have been hard, to say the least.
I'm sorry about all that.
Hearing about Sandy Hook truthers, and seeing the outcome of the recent US elections, has really shaken my assumptions about how typical people think and process information.
I don't assume that I'm immune from this, or that I'm my not in some media bubble. But it's saddening regardless.
Hearing about Sandy Hook truthers, and seeing the outcome of the recent US elections, has really shaken my assumptions about how typical people think and process information.
I don't assume that I'm immune from this, or that I'm my not in some media bubble. But it's saddening regardless.
> I saw my mom gradually become a Sandy Hook "truther" as she fell deep down Facebook rabbitholes. It was bad. Although she eventually came around (...)
Mind sharing how she came around? My dad fell a similar hole but I haven't been able to rescue him yet.
Mind sharing how she came around? My dad fell a similar hole but I haven't been able to rescue him yet.
She spends almost all of her time on Facebook, and I'm just guessing her feed changed eventually.
I remember her being convinced that the parents weren't reacting like she'd expect a grieving parent to. She was deep in Sandy Hook Truther groups.
I wish I could say it was arguments and logic and reasoning, or the pain being borne by the community around her. But I think she just believes everything she sees on Facebook, and Facebook stopped showing her Sandy Hook Truther stuff.
I remember her being convinced that the parents weren't reacting like she'd expect a grieving parent to. She was deep in Sandy Hook Truther groups.
I wish I could say it was arguments and logic and reasoning, or the pain being borne by the community around her. But I think she just believes everything she sees on Facebook, and Facebook stopped showing her Sandy Hook Truther stuff.
I'm not in his camp, but trying to play Devil's Advocate for your benefit:
Are you sure that your arguments are more solid than his?
E.g., are you and he both relying on outside source of information, which neither of you have the time / resources / motivation to verify?
And if so, are you and he just assigning different levels of trust in a given source?
When I've been in situations slightly similar to yours, I was disheartened to realize that my own justifications weren't as solid as I originally thought.
That is, I was still pretty well convinced of my own position, but I realized that the main reason for it was a judgment call and intuition, rather than an unassailable argument.
Are you sure that your arguments are more solid than his?
E.g., are you and he both relying on outside source of information, which neither of you have the time / resources / motivation to verify?
And if so, are you and he just assigning different levels of trust in a given source?
When I've been in situations slightly similar to yours, I was disheartened to realize that my own justifications weren't as solid as I originally thought.
That is, I was still pretty well convinced of my own position, but I realized that the main reason for it was a judgment call and intuition, rather than an unassailable argument.
What really should have happened in this case, like the the Parkland killer, was for the people who sued to also take his Name and Likeness.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/families-settle-court-b...
This would hopefully avoid letting him just rebuild another slime empire.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/families-settle-court-b...
This would hopefully avoid letting him just rebuild another slime empire.
Then we just end up with "the artist formerly known as Prince" situation where everyone knows the nom de plume is actually him.
You are quite the tyrant. Think about what you are proposing. You should be ashamed
In one sense this is funny, in another it's justice, but I think from a broader perspective this is just more of the same tit-for-tat nonsense that moves the needle in the wrong direction.
My hypothesis is that the U.S. didn't become more divided because of moron sites like I.W. but rather because of our collective reaction to them. These groups are far easier to ignore when we stop trying to silence them.
My hypothesis is that the U.S. didn't become more divided because of moron sites like I.W. but rather because of our collective reaction to them. These groups are far easier to ignore when we stop trying to silence them.
I get the broader point of eye-for-an-eye.. but in this case how are people supposed to ignore when the harm done is very real and very cruel? These groups don’t want to operate in their own little corner of the world. They will up the ante until they gain notoriety and the attention they want, which enables them to make the money they want. The collective reaction is all but guaranteed, I would argue and it’s not because people want to silence morons, but to limit harm.
It's like fighting mold in my opinion. Happy to turn the disinfectant on a particular area if we get that chance. It's poetically done here - the parents who were hurt the most were able to capture the source of that pain and turn it towards better purposes.
I don't think the causation runs either direction. At most, I'd say that a site like InfoWars reflects the division, rather than either causing it or being caused by it.
Divisiveness in the US goes much deeper than that, and long predates both the Internet and that kind of radio program. You could perhaps pick the early 70s as a starting point, with the US deeply divided by Vietnam and Civil Rights, at exactly the same time as real government conspiracies (Watergate, COINTELPRO, MKUltra) came to light.
I'd actually trace it back further than that, through McCarthyism, the Civil War, and back before the Revolution. But there's a fairly direct course between the divisiveness of the 1960s and where we end up today.
I really don't think it would have helped anything to ignore Alex Jones.
Divisiveness in the US goes much deeper than that, and long predates both the Internet and that kind of radio program. You could perhaps pick the early 70s as a starting point, with the US deeply divided by Vietnam and Civil Rights, at exactly the same time as real government conspiracies (Watergate, COINTELPRO, MKUltra) came to light.
I'd actually trace it back further than that, through McCarthyism, the Civil War, and back before the Revolution. But there's a fairly direct course between the divisiveness of the 1960s and where we end up today.
I really don't think it would have helped anything to ignore Alex Jones.
An outcome of two-party systems is polarization. A voter in a true multi-party democracy can vote in a multidimensional way, whereas a voter in a two-party system is forced into one of two "sides" on a one-dimensional line. As the values people hold dear are threatened, they will inevitably flatten their values and be pulled towards a pole.
I don't know how to design a system to encourage such multidimensional parties. A two-party system seems like an inevitable consequence of the fact that there is exactly 1 winner in any election.
Even when a system nominally has more than two parties, there are usually two dominant parties. Other parties either align with one or the other, or are sidelined. People associated with losing parties never seem to be pleased just that their voices were heard.
Even when a system nominally has more than two parties, there are usually two dominant parties. Other parties either align with one or the other, or are sidelined. People associated with losing parties never seem to be pleased just that their voices were heard.
It's not all or nothing, as the leader of a country doesn't rule alone. Even if a system encourages two dominant parties, the smaller parties can have a big effect. In Canada, the two big (Federal) parties are the Liberals and the Conservatives, and they always win federally.
But it's still not all-or-nothing. For example, the Liberal party often adopts NDP positions if they're gaining popular support. And when the big parties get complacent, they risk losing their "one of two" status. In 2011 in Canada, the NDP was the Official Opposition (second winning party) and the Liberals were a distant third, leading to a big shakeup in strategy. And the provincial parties are different than the Federal parties. I think our system is flawed and too "two party", but the small plurality of parties is what makes Canada a lot less prone to political extremism in my opinion.
Canaidan-Australian Youtuber Paige Saunders has a video arguing that instant runoff voting tempered more extreme politicians in Alaska:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8vWF2E3qDg
But it's still not all-or-nothing. For example, the Liberal party often adopts NDP positions if they're gaining popular support. And when the big parties get complacent, they risk losing their "one of two" status. In 2011 in Canada, the NDP was the Official Opposition (second winning party) and the Liberals were a distant third, leading to a big shakeup in strategy. And the provincial parties are different than the Federal parties. I think our system is flawed and too "two party", but the small plurality of parties is what makes Canada a lot less prone to political extremism in my opinion.
Canaidan-Australian Youtuber Paige Saunders has a video arguing that instant runoff voting tempered more extreme politicians in Alaska:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8vWF2E3qDg
It's my belief that it's Canadians that make Canada a lot less prone to political extremism.
But watch out: America tends to be on the forefront of things. Political extremism persists because it's politically successful. Extremists are enthusiastic, and moderates often follow them because it gets them what they want.
I hope Canadian's cultural adversion to the kind of behavior Americans display will save you for a long time to come. But the fact is that extremism works, and many people will prefer to win against their principles than lose with them.
But watch out: America tends to be on the forefront of things. Political extremism persists because it's politically successful. Extremists are enthusiastic, and moderates often follow them because it gets them what they want.
I hope Canadian's cultural adversion to the kind of behavior Americans display will save you for a long time to come. But the fact is that extremism works, and many people will prefer to win against their principles than lose with them.
Political extremism persists because it's politically successful in places where political moderacy isn't. Us Canadians aren't better than Americans, we have a system that allows people to vote more closely to their values and (somewhat) avoid polarization. It's not perfect and a lot of the issues come down to being a "2 Party Lite" instead of a full multi-party democracy.
In my opinion, American Exceptionalism is not a pretension that the USA is the best, but a general assumption that culture primarily drives a nation's systems and not the other way around.
In my opinion, American Exceptionalism is not a pretension that the USA is the best, but a general assumption that culture primarily drives a nation's systems and not the other way around.
[deleted]
If, god forbid, your child gets killed in a shooting, imagine getting harassed about it for years by misinformed assholes who say your child never existed. That is a level of cruelty that is unfathomable. Helping buy out the misinformation engine that was responsible is not even close to 'tit-for-tat' and I literally can't understand how anyone would think that. You aren't being 'wise' here by standing in the middle. You're defending some of the worst people in society.
I had a friend who often said "sunlight is the best disinfectant". Of course, he was saying that in about 2010 and I'm pretty sure it's aged extremely poorly, because the increasing publicity around conspiracy theories has only made them more popular. It feels like a stretch to say "but people were trying to silence the conspiracy theories, that's why they caught on!"
Jezebel wrote an article in 2013 about feeding the trolls until the explode [1]. I disagree today, and it seems quaint. IRL, professional trolls, the Proud Boys, come to my town (Portland) to stir up shit every few years. Do we ignore them? Or do we subscribe to "broken window theory": if they get an inch they'll take a mile? I have a tough time with this, both responses seem correct and wrong at the same time, but there's no way to tell which is working.
[1] https://www.jezebel.com/dont-ignore-the-trolls-feed-them-unt...
[1] https://www.jezebel.com/dont-ignore-the-trolls-feed-them-unt...
The traditional way was to have an eating contest with the troll, where you hide a bag under your shirt, surreptitiously slipping some of the food into that, and at some point pretend to extravagantly cut up your stomach to be able to fit more food, so the ambitious troll will try to do the same.
>because the increasing publicity around conspiracy theories has only made them more popular.
Or because after Iraq war and Covid the default is to be skeptical of everything government.
Or because after Iraq war and Covid the default is to be skeptical of everything government.
Nice summary and agree in the way you put it, which I am stating to all sides - so nobody likes to hear it :-) since majority is literally polarized (i.e. their objectiveness, capacity to think deep, sort/prioritize is disrupted by impact to emotions/biases)
I worry that this might make The Onion a less credible news source.
Really curious what the bidding was like or who else made an offer, since it seems that the Sandy Hook Victims (who own all of the debt?) wanted the sale to The Onion specifically
Part of the sale is that Onion InfoWars will run pro-gun safety ads from Everytown USA. That and the obvious goal of humiliating Jones is probably why the Sandy Hook parents sold it to the Onion.
Can't say I'm not happy. Jones is an evil man who has richly earned this indignity and worse. His campaign of harassment against people whose children were murdered was so bad, some parents brought private security guards to testify at his trial [0]. They described death threats, strangers confronting them in their homes and shooting at their cars.
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/shootings-texas-school-connecticu...
Can't say I'm not happy. Jones is an evil man who has richly earned this indignity and worse. His campaign of harassment against people whose children were murdered was so bad, some parents brought private security guards to testify at his trial [0]. They described death threats, strangers confronting them in their homes and shooting at their cars.
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/shootings-texas-school-connecticu...
A buyer is not always required to select the bid of the highest monetary value; sounds like the Onion had a proposal that was "a reasonable sum of money, and also we help lead a healthy way to find a path to redemption for this website and make it a kinder place than before"
are the families the seller or just the beneficiary?
I wondered how the structure worked too. Technically the Sandy Hook Victims can buy Infowars. All the money they bid would just all come right back to themselves anyway. This article calls it a "joint bid".
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-14/the-onion...
Meanwhile, Alex Jones is calling a hearing next week to accuse the bid process of being rigged https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1857223561754059168
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-14/the-onion...
Meanwhile, Alex Jones is calling a hearing next week to accuse the bid process of being rigged https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1857223561754059168
> Meanwhile, Alex Jones is calling a hearing next week to accuse the bid process of being rigged https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1857223561754059168
Alex Jones is not a reliable source
Alex Jones is not a reliable source
[deleted]
I'd be surprised if there weren't any safeguards to prevent Infowars from posting hate ever again.
I'm watching his stream just to see how the drama goes down and a silly tech-adjacent bit popped up when he started ranting about Linux and how if "they" were trying to take Linus Torvalds down, they still couldn't ever own Linux!
Linus Torvalds political opinions, to the extent I've seen him express them, are hardly in line with Alex Jones. So this feels odd.
He was clutching at straws. He's famous for random tangents and non sequiturs. He was comparing himself to Colonel Travis at the Battle of the Alamo in the next breath. I just thought it was funny/weird that Linux, of all things, jumped into his mind as an example to use during his rant.
I remember a claim that the wokies were trying to take down Linus Torvalds doing the rounds at some point. E.g. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/04/feminists-are-tryi...
The source being Eric S. Raymond covering for why women avoid him checks out.
Woke scaremongering makes the old red scare hysteria look like a mild panic attack.
Woke scaremongering makes the old red scare hysteria look like a mild panic attack.
And I believe he is wrong in this case. Linus is absolutely a lynchpin for Linux control. He can be replaced, but whoever replaces him then becomes that lynchpin. He's the benevolent dictator for life after all.
You're assuming that would be one person and one organization, the way it is now.
I think that's the most likely outcome, but it isn't a safe bet by any means.
In any case I hope it's a good long time before we have to find out, since I wish Linus long life and good health.
I think that's the most likely outcome, but it isn't a safe bet by any means.
In any case I hope it's a good long time before we have to find out, since I wish Linus long life and good health.
There's already a contingency plan, and Linus has designated his consigliere, Greg Kroah-Hartman, as his successor.
I don't expect the structure to change. I guess we'll see.
I don't expect the structure to change. I guess we'll see.
[deleted]
Is there a recording of this?
No, but I imagine it'll pop up somewhere given everyone who records and shares his stuff. I was going to clip it at the time but my screen capture software decided to spontaneously update and demand money for the upgrade.
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be. Thanks, Tim Onion.
https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3law23r...
https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3law23r...
Inside a lot of humor is some deep seated truth.
It's encouraging that an org based on humor / even a little truth here ultimately buys and will discard an empire of hateful lies.
It's encouraging that an org based on humor / even a little truth here ultimately buys and will discard an empire of hateful lies.
Financial Ruin and Mockery seem appropriate for the peddlers of vitriolic clickbait.
Interesting piece on The New Republic: https://newrepublic.com/post/188430/alex-jones-meltdown-reac...
> “By divesting Jones of Infowars’ assets, the families and the team at The Onion have done a public service and will meaningfully hinder Jones’s ability to do more harm,”
How hard is it really to start a new podcast?
How hard is it really to start a new podcast?
He likely still owes them significant money, so they can keep pursuing him for that for a while. But even without his financial troubles, trying to rebuild his brand is just going to lead to endless self-debasement. James O'Keefe is still at it since Project Veritas shut down, but has little reach any more.
I wonder if Cards Against Humanity bid against them.
I posted the full audio of the 14 Nov 2024 hearing with the bankruptcy judge so you can hear all sides of the story, and the judge's reaction. Apologies it's on the Tweeter/Xitter.
https://x.com/magazedia/status/1857962924762898502
https://x.com/magazedia/status/1857962924762898502
They can just run the original content with a The Onion logo and every will find it hilarious.
Looks like a judge has blocked the finalization of the sale pending a hearing:
https://nypost.com/2024/11/15/media/infowars-sale-to-the-oni...
I know you on HN aren't actually interested in the truth, but here it is anyway. The Onion did not purchase Infowars: https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1857223561754059168?t=7Q-...
Well it seems like it was halted by a judge. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14085727/Judge-halt...
I can see it looks a bit iffy saying there's an auction and then taking a private bid without letting others bid.
I can see it looks a bit iffy saying there's an auction and then taking a private bid without letting others bid.
As much as I’m amused by the purchase of InfoWars by The Onion, many are, in fact, interested in the truth and appreciate other perspectives.
To wit, I did some googling because of your message, not the X post. Best I can find right now is this NY Post [0] article, so I’ll continue watching to see how this unfolds.
[0] https://nypost.com/2024/11/15/media/infowars-sale-to-the-oni...
To wit, I did some googling because of your message, not the X post. Best I can find right now is this NY Post [0] article, so I’ll continue watching to see how this unfolds.
[0] https://nypost.com/2024/11/15/media/infowars-sale-to-the-oni...
Truth from the guy who says the parents of murdered kids are “crisis actors.”
This is the essence of populism: revolting against a disliked and distrusted establishment by backing a significantly and very obviously worse alternative. Instead of the mainstream media which has proven itself untrustworthy let’s go for a full on con artist. Instead of bad journalism let’s have pure fantasy made up by dudes taking bong hits.
It’s the intellectual equivalent of protesting police misconduct by setting your own neighborhood on fire and destroying your own things. That’ll show em.
This is the essence of populism: revolting against a disliked and distrusted establishment by backing a significantly and very obviously worse alternative. Instead of the mainstream media which has proven itself untrustworthy let’s go for a full on con artist. Instead of bad journalism let’s have pure fantasy made up by dudes taking bong hits.
It’s the intellectual equivalent of protesting police misconduct by setting your own neighborhood on fire and destroying your own things. That’ll show em.
You're linking to a video from a guy who has lied so hard he is now bankrupt, to tell us it's a lie that his company got bought due to his lies, all while being hosted on a platform elusively catered to lying...
Why'd anyone take Jones words as truth anymore? He's a convicted serial lier.
The domain obviously has changed owners.
The domain obviously has changed owners.
Who links to twitter anymore? That place is untrustworthy and irrelevant.
It's quite funny reading all the comments on here of people nearly foaming at the mouth in excitement that someone got fined the GDP of a small nation for speech, went bankrupt, was supposedly bought by a left-wing satire news outlet to rub salt in the wound of him losing his life's work, and it turns out the sale wasn't even real.
I'm ashamed to be among this crowd sometimes.
On that note, anyone know of websites similar to HN that aren't filled to the brim with LA/NY brats? Other than /g/?
I'm ashamed to be among this crowd sometimes.
On that note, anyone know of websites similar to HN that aren't filled to the brim with LA/NY brats? Other than /g/?
I thought this was a prank, but "The satirical news company plans to shutter Jones’ Infowars and rebuild the website featuring well-known internet humor writers and content creators."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/onion-wins-alex-jones-i...
See also: "Why I Decided To Buy 'InfoWars'"
"Make no mistake: This is a coup for our company and a well-deserved victory for multinational elites the world over... we plan to collect the entire stock of the InfoWars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents down into a single candy bar–sized omnivitamin that one executive (I will not name names) may eat in order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal."
https://theonion.com/heres-why-i-decided-to-buy-infowars/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/onion-wins-alex-jones-i...
See also: "Why I Decided To Buy 'InfoWars'"
"Make no mistake: This is a coup for our company and a well-deserved victory for multinational elites the world over... we plan to collect the entire stock of the InfoWars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents down into a single candy bar–sized omnivitamin that one executive (I will not name names) may eat in order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal."
https://theonion.com/heres-why-i-decided-to-buy-infowars/
Apparently the sale has been reversed and is being contested. https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/1857261507010052306?s=46
The Onion did a fundraising campaign a few months ago.
Glad to see this is where my donation went!
I wish I lived in the reality where the Waking Life (2001) version of Alex Jones was the one we got: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5HLn3eYLSo
Justice, both poetic and civil. Bravo to The Onion.
Well not so fast the judge says: https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1857223561754059168
Should we all just "get off the internet" and join X? What is the use of this post?
Why are you using quotation marks
Anybody else have to triple check it wasn't just The Onion trolling?
Worth remembering that Donald Trump embraced Alex Jones after his sustained campaign of vicious, hateful and provably-false lies about dead child.
So did Joe Rogan.
So did Joe Rogan.
I actually kind of liked Joe Rogan (from the little I saw of him interviewing scientists and other ‘intellectuals’), but the more I think about it and learn the more I realise he’s just a moron.
He's a very likeable personality. But he offers the same platform and uses the same kids gloves on all of his guests, regardless of if they are world class professionals at the top of their field or the most deranged sicko fucks peddling insane conspiracy theories.
Yeah — exactly. I’ve never seen anything that makes me doubt he’s a good person. But he seems utterly unable to distinguish between bullshit artists and genuine experts.
His schtick is "I'm just a dumb boy, what do I know?", which IMO is just irresponsible when you have such huge reach and influence. Joe Rogan is either utterly naive or he is a cynic.
He also has a lot of very strong opinions on some important topics and then when convenient he will pull that line out.
Inside a lot of humor is some deep seated truth.
It's encouraging that an org based on humor / even a little truth here ultimately buys and will discard an empire of hateful lies.
It's encouraging that an org based on humor / even a little truth here ultimately buys and will discard an empire of hateful lies.
What's wild is that if I go to the Infowars website I can't actually tell if The Onion is controlling it yet or not. It all looks like satire already, full of absolutely ridiculous headlines.
Imagine there are humans who read those headlines and think to themselves that it is real.
Worse yet, imagine that those humans are armed, and many of them routinely fantasize about what they do when "it's time". My local gun store has sported an InfoWars sticker for many years now.
> imagine that those humans are armed, and many of them routinely fantasize about what they do when "it's time"
I don't think those people actually exist. I've never seen an actual person who wasn't satirizing or parodying an image of this person.
I don't think those people actually exist. I've never seen an actual person who wasn't satirizing or parodying an image of this person.
> My local gun store
Not a thing for most places
Not a thing for most places
Can't say that about the USA.
I hope they preserve all the URLs - I'm laughing already just thinking about the wealth of inbound links soon pointing to parodic content.
That's the best practical joke I have ever heard!
Prediction:
Over the next decades the onion will slowly become not a, but the only, source of real news as all the other sources become more like info wars.
Over the next decades the onion will slowly become not a, but the only, source of real news as all the other sources become more like info wars.
Prediction: The Onion will be out of business within 5 years
I bet this was posted by someone at the onion
Holy cod, Infowars' afterlife as a (presumed) parody of itself is going to be bigger than its regular existence ever was.
This sounds like an Onion headline.
And to add extra spice, they're actually doing it for a good cause, educating about gun safety in cooperation with nonprofits and the families of children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre.
Obligatory fuck Alex Jones with a bat with rusty barbed wire. He profited off the misery of murdered kids, this is beyond low.
And to add extra spice, they're actually doing it for a good cause, educating about gun safety in cooperation with nonprofits and the families of children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre.
Obligatory fuck Alex Jones with a bat with rusty barbed wire. He profited off the misery of murdered kids, this is beyond low.
The first time I heard about it was from an Onion headline about it: https://theonion.com/heres-why-i-decided-to-buy-infowars/
Everytown isn't an educational organization and they have no gun safety programs. It's Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group.
nixdev(1)
I heard bidding got pretty heated between the Onion people, cards against humanity, and the pinboard guy
This is actually really good news.
The money they paid is going directly to Sandy Hook families
Nobody can use Infowars for evil.
Alex Jones looks like a fool.
The money they paid is going directly to Sandy Hook families
Nobody can use Infowars for evil.
Alex Jones looks like a fool.
Wait. When I first saw this news on Twitter I thought it was a joke, since it was a tweet by The Onion.
Wir haben Kunst, damit wir nicht an der Wahrheit zugrunde gehen.
It looks like Everytown for Gun Safety is now getting ads on The Onion, too - of course The Onion is still out of money, but what the hell at least there’s a serious part to this.
The hilarious thing is that they just basically need to add the label "Satire:" to every "news" title on the site to realize value from it.
Strange. I like The Onion as much as the next guy, but you can't make Infowars more of a "parody of itself" than it already is. Just shut it down?
This is going to be the greatest satire website ever
I hope that they can keep the spirit of the infowars conspiracy genre alive.
> “US seeks to destabilize Canada into a war with Mexico to solve the border crisis “
> “US seeks to destabilize Canada into a war with Mexico to solve the border crisis “
Can Global Tetrahedron buy Twitter please?
Does Alex Jones get any of this money? Because if he does this is effectively a partial refund for him.
Infowars is being sold, along with his other assets because he's going bankrupt. He's not getting anything from the proceeds.
Beautiful.
The poet they sent couldn't have done better.
The poet they sent couldn't have done better.
Making satire today is really hard. This could even be some article title on The Onion.
Reality is their biggest competitor.
Reality is their biggest competitor.
Among the things this year that I wish had never happened, this event is in the complement set.
Buying trash in order to put it in the dumpster forever is honorable.
But trash belongs in the dumpster, and nowhere else.
But trash belongs in the dumpster, and nowhere else.
This is so good. I love that country.
The Onion is irrelevant. In 3 years they will be gone and Alex Jones will pick this up for $5m
Alex Jones still owes $1.5 billions to the people he wronged, he's never buying anything ever again.
How does this actually work though? Can the debt be discharged in bankruptcy?
Now that he's been stripped of his assets, what's to stop him declaring bankruptcy, then using his name and reputation to get rich with another, new InfoWars-like brand?
Now that he's been stripped of his assets, what's to stop him declaring bankruptcy, then using his name and reputation to get rich with another, new InfoWars-like brand?
[deleted]
today an onion made me cry a bit
I understand the vitriol against mr jones perfectly. Before his sandy hook saga I was actually somewhat of a fan of his work. I remember hearing an idiotic rant of his complaining that the US government was putting chemicals in the water that turned the frogs gay. But sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.
"Researchers have found evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of drug residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-in-...
That, and the purposeful addition of fluoride and other additives do put our freshwater at risk of a scandal if we ever undercount or overcount any risk. I wouldn't even put it past 1960's era scientists to have come up with insane grant proposals for asymmetric warfare of freshwater. Hell, who knows what project flies under the radar until its not. These are all things I would expect to read in an onion news article. Alex jones had the same vibe the onion had with their 9/11 coverage and why I think the purchase is both satirical and not at the same time. Satire is heterological in that way.
What I would like to remind the reader of is that alex jones made a big mistake in vilifying the victims. But please do not take that as a pass to do the same to alex jones as he did to his victims. An eye for an eye will make the world blind.
After the coup we will finally have the most trusted source of our news back.
That, and the purposeful addition of fluoride and other additives do put our freshwater at risk of a scandal if we ever undercount or overcount any risk. I wouldn't even put it past 1960's era scientists to have come up with insane grant proposals for asymmetric warfare of freshwater. Hell, who knows what project flies under the radar until its not. These are all things I would expect to read in an onion news article. Alex jones had the same vibe the onion had with their 9/11 coverage and why I think the purchase is both satirical and not at the same time. Satire is heterological in that way.
What I would like to remind the reader of is that alex jones made a big mistake in vilifying the victims. But please do not take that as a pass to do the same to alex jones as he did to his victims. An eye for an eye will make the world blind.
After the coup we will finally have the most trusted source of our news back.
> alex jones made a big mistake in vilifying the victims. But please do not take that as a pass to do the same to alex jones as he did to his victims. An eye for an eye will make the world blind.
I'm sorry but this really undersells what Alex did. He didn't make a simple mistake and he wasn't taken to court quickly.
Those kids were brutally murdered in 2012. The first lawsuit against Jones over it was filed in 2018. Jones spent 6 years calling it a hoax, calling the parents liars, and paying "reporters" to harass parents, family, first responders, and government officials.
The parents ended up moving, changing their names, hiring private security, getting shot at, and one died by suicide. One parent said they knew when Jones mentioned them because new harassment started shortly afterwards.
Jones was contacted by the parents, asked to stop, and one parent would issue dmcas to stop him from continually sharing his deceased son's photo.
In Jones' text messages, he and his crew called the sandyhook experts crazy and used sandyhook as a shorthand to crazy conspiracy garbage.
So why did he do it? Because he would daily track his sales and noticed that days where he talked about sandyhook brought in more money.
This was all proved in court and depositions.
Alex Jones is far from persecuted. And I'd love living in a world where someone who dedicated 6 years of their media empire to harassing harassing greaving parents, that person loses their money and company.
I'm sorry but this really undersells what Alex did. He didn't make a simple mistake and he wasn't taken to court quickly.
Those kids were brutally murdered in 2012. The first lawsuit against Jones over it was filed in 2018. Jones spent 6 years calling it a hoax, calling the parents liars, and paying "reporters" to harass parents, family, first responders, and government officials.
The parents ended up moving, changing their names, hiring private security, getting shot at, and one died by suicide. One parent said they knew when Jones mentioned them because new harassment started shortly afterwards.
Jones was contacted by the parents, asked to stop, and one parent would issue dmcas to stop him from continually sharing his deceased son's photo.
In Jones' text messages, he and his crew called the sandyhook experts crazy and used sandyhook as a shorthand to crazy conspiracy garbage.
So why did he do it? Because he would daily track his sales and noticed that days where he talked about sandyhook brought in more money.
This was all proved in court and depositions.
Alex Jones is far from persecuted. And I'd love living in a world where someone who dedicated 6 years of their media empire to harassing harassing greaving parents, that person loses their money and company.
"Infinite Growth Forever," - that onion-y sign off made me laugh.
Actually started laughing seeing that
[deleted]
It's really just a simple internal resource transfer, I reckon.
This is actually one of the funniest things I've seen
The dankest timeline
Everything about this is pure win
All I can do now is hope and prey that this ends up being the literal dictionary definition of “Poe’s Law”. #goodspeed
A significant percentage of the population will always gravitate towards the type of content produced by Alex Jones and Infowars.
Russia solved this by making "controlled" media outlets (and in recent years Telegram channels) for people who gravitate toward conspiracies and contrarian viewpoints without making them critical of the current Russian administration.
Obviously that is not what The Onion is planning to do but that is what this story reminded me of.
Russia solved this by making "controlled" media outlets (and in recent years Telegram channels) for people who gravitate toward conspiracies and contrarian viewpoints without making them critical of the current Russian administration.
Obviously that is not what The Onion is planning to do but that is what this story reminded me of.
The US already does this. The problem is that most Americans can't understand that their favourite Red/Blue scandal is just a side show at the circus of genocide.
What a time to be alive !
Not sure if this is true or just another Onion article.
NBC is reporting it too. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/onion-wins-alex-jones-i..., reported on HN by elsewhen at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42136327.
So... I guess it's real? Still feels surreal...
So... I guess it's real? Still feels surreal...
The past 10 years feels surreal...
The onion has not yet bought the times.
When they do I hope it's Infowars that first reports the deal.
why would they buy something that no longer exists? https://theonion.com/new-york-times-to-cease-publication/
> yet
Infowars itself confirms it: https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-live-last-infowars-tran...
Is not even funny
...One nation indivisible – with liberty and justice for
all.
Justice has prevailed.
Welcome Back, Alex.
Justice has prevailed.
Welcome Back, Alex.
I refuse to believe in any conspiracies except that The Onion took over The Matrix and is running a Truman Show program full of unreal absurdities to see if I'll go insane.
Fitting!
potentially hilarious. can't wait to see what they launch.
Narrative security.
I love this, it's like a pinnacle of performance art.
Maybe "performance satire"?
Maybe "performance satire"?
OJ Simpson payed 33.5M to the family of the woman he murdered.
It's insanity that you can flat-out kill someone and get paid less in civil court than denying a murder ever happened.
It's insanity that you can flat-out kill someone and get paid less in civil court than denying a murder ever happened.
Breaking news: Trump names Alex Jones head of FCC
Oh now this is some good news in the post truth world of Trump 2.0
The current speculation by the right-o-sphere that Alex Jones is about to be appointed the Trump press secretary is apt for the moment where Trump seems to have made his nominations on the basis of how much they will disturb the left. It's hard to imagine anyone that could be more effective at achieving that than Jones.
[flagged]
The KKK hasn't been relevant since Jerry Springer dredged them up for his show in the 90s, you may need to update your roster of Boogeymen.
jiayo(2)
Both left and right are assemblages of compromises flying in loose formation.
Vivek ramaswamy and Tulsi Gabbard and usha Vance and Marco Rubio.... Kkk has become very diverse lately /s.
Okay, but really... If you're going to criticize, can we at least make valid analogies?
Okay, but really... If you're going to criticize, can we at least make valid analogies?
I don’t think effective government is founded on the basis of lolz.
Haven't you seen the DOGE department yet?
Haven't you seen the DOGE department yet?
How do you make government smaller?
Step 1: Make government bigger by inventing a new department!
(Strictly speaking, it's not a government department. It is a private entity that will operate outside the government, and influence the president. What could possibly go wrong?)
How do you make government smaller?
Step 1: Make government bigger by inventing a new department!
(Strictly speaking, it's not a government department. It is a private entity that will operate outside the government, and influence the president. What could possibly go wrong?)
> It is a private entity that will operate outside the government, and influence the president. What could possibly go wrong?
National Science Board is an external advisory board to the US gov. There's tons of examples of this sort of thing, especially in education and science.
National Science Board is an external advisory board to the US gov. There's tons of examples of this sort of thing, especially in education and science.
The National Science Board was established by Congress, its activities are defined and governed by the law that created it, and it is clearly a part of the executive branch. Why do you consider it to be external to the government?
I'm guessing Doge would be regulated under this act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Advisory_Committee_Act...
If they actually follow the legal requirements listed in that article I will come back and apologize to you.
It would have to be by law.
The president can’t make a task force consisting of external advisors (non full time federal employees) in an official matter unless their activities are public and open to inspection.
Clinton got in trouble for this by putting Hillary on a Task Force in the early 1990s.
The president can’t make a task force consisting of external advisors (non full time federal employees) in an official matter unless their activities are public and open to inspection.
Clinton got in trouble for this by putting Hillary on a Task Force in the early 1990s.
Pretty sure the National Science Board isn't co-chaired by a CEO and part owner multibillionaire with direct personal interests around government funded science projects though.
Not defending Doge just saying it's not new. Defence Business Board is a similar analogy. Plenty of people working at companies with gov contracts on the board during its history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Business_Board
https://dbb.defense.gov/Board-Members/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Business_Board
https://dbb.defense.gov/Board-Members/
Nothing screams efficiency like 2 dept heads.
In fairness, the possibility the two heads' respective egos will cancel each other out is the most efficient thing about it...
And let's be perfectly clear - given two weeks in office they will be screaming at us.
[deleted]
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy… They have two people running the Department of Government Efficiency
Whatever it is, it for sure has the lolzs as its basis.
I’ve found the testable hypothesis!
It's effective at disorientation and disbelief.
Well it also wasn't founded on whatever the hell we were doing before either
> It's hard to imagine anyone that could be more effective at achieving that than Jones.
Asking as a non-American: how disturbing would it be if he appointed Putin?
Asking as a non-American: how disturbing would it be if he appointed Putin?
If you wanted your comment to hit a bit better, you might have considered, e.g., Lavrov.
I didn't know who that was until googling before replying, are you sure that's going to hit better with an American audience?
Either on Hacker News or as an "own the libs" choice for Trump?
Either on Hacker News or as an "own the libs" choice for Trump?
He is owned by another foreign government.
drawkward(1)
sincerecook(1)
zer8k(1)
the_optimist(1)
quantadev(7)
h_tbob(1)
fsckboy(4)
nixdev(7)
Can anyone explain how InfoWars was sued and found guilty of free speech? There must be much more I’m not getting but although Jones sounds like an asshole I don’t think that’s illegal.
Why can’t someone sell an opinion that a tragedy didn’t actually exist and was created to push an agenda? It could be a provably false claim but don’t they have the right to make it? Isn’t being despicable a basic right?
Why can’t someone sell an opinion that a tragedy didn’t actually exist and was created to push an agenda? It could be a provably false claim but don’t they have the right to make it? Isn’t being despicable a basic right?
That’s not how defamation laws work.
There is a ton of information out there about this. It goes beyond free speech to defamation, inciting harassment etc. Repeatedly calling grieving parents "Crisis Actors", publicly calling them liars over and over again, it turns out is not OK.
And then Jones/Infowars spectacularly failed to engage properly with the legal system, and the case went to default judgement.
https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-cons...
> Isn’t being despicable a basic right?
Personally I'm glad something could be done about it. He was profiting from causing further pain to people already going through something pretty unimaginable.
And then Jones/Infowars spectacularly failed to engage properly with the legal system, and the case went to default judgement.
https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-cons...
> Isn’t being despicable a basic right?
Personally I'm glad something could be done about it. He was profiting from causing further pain to people already going through something pretty unimaginable.
Next step: The Onion buys X.
I'm very much not a fan of Q-anon and related subcultures, but the sandy-hook award of $1.5 billion is obviously ridiculous, and is clearly just a government/institutional exercise in dictatorial/systemic power.
There is no possible way that someone ranting on the internet can cause 1.5 billion of emotional damage or whatever the claim was.
In particular, the libel (and it should be libel, making claims that are not true, rather than 'defamation' which is merely slurring them), should be from a credible source. Alex Jones is obviously not a credible source in this, or any case, and is unlikely to have caused any material harm (loss of jobs etc) to the 'victims'.
I mean, good riddance to Alex Jones, but the tools and methods used were entirely inappropriate to a liberal democracy, where you prevail with better arguments.
There is no possible way that someone ranting on the internet can cause 1.5 billion of emotional damage or whatever the claim was.
In particular, the libel (and it should be libel, making claims that are not true, rather than 'defamation' which is merely slurring them), should be from a credible source. Alex Jones is obviously not a credible source in this, or any case, and is unlikely to have caused any material harm (loss of jobs etc) to the 'victims'.
I mean, good riddance to Alex Jones, but the tools and methods used were entirely inappropriate to a liberal democracy, where you prevail with better arguments.
It was a civil case, so no government/prosecutor, and the jury awarded much more than plaintiffs asked for.
EDIT: Also you can disagree with the amount, but the award is literally the jury saying that the plaintiffs “prevailed with better arguments”
EDIT: Also you can disagree with the amount, but the award is literally the jury saying that the plaintiffs “prevailed with better arguments”
That doesnt mean it was a reasonable amount.
Clearly the jury placed a higher value on wiping out Jones financially than you would have.
No but it dispels the opening statement of gp about supposed dictatorial power.
I didnt see anything about a dictatorial power, just a complaint about incompatibility with liberal democracy, and I tend to agree.
That can come from broken systems as easily as a dictator.
It is hard for me to imagine what would support 150 million per plaintiff. That is and order of magnitude more civil damages than are often awarded for cold blooded murder.
Everyone hates Alex Jones, and I don't like him either, but that shouldn't trump justice and proportionality. It makes me think that the penalty was for more than what was on trial, and rather a reflection of mob justice by other means.
That can come from broken systems as easily as a dictator.
It is hard for me to imagine what would support 150 million per plaintiff. That is and order of magnitude more civil damages than are often awarded for cold blooded murder.
Everyone hates Alex Jones, and I don't like him either, but that shouldn't trump justice and proportionality. It makes me think that the penalty was for more than what was on trial, and rather a reflection of mob justice by other means.
> clearly just a government/institutional exercise in dictatorial/systemic power
fair, I missed that and read the system version, which is also there
Indeed 'dictatorial power' was not quite what I meant - I did not mean that Trump or Biden demanded a certain outcome for example,
I mean that the system prosecutes these kinds of cases seemingly quite unfairly, as with Assange, or some of the maneuvers against Russell Brand, and that the actions just so happen to mesh with the interests of those in power.
People can claim that everything is OK because, court of law, etc, but to me the system is clearly not delivering correct answers.
I mean that the system prosecutes these kinds of cases seemingly quite unfairly, as with Assange, or some of the maneuvers against Russell Brand, and that the actions just so happen to mesh with the interests of those in power.
People can claim that everything is OK because, court of law, etc, but to me the system is clearly not delivering correct answers.
Well, it moves the claim. Now the dictatorial power lies with the jury.
The normal corrective for such a thing is to appeal the amount of the award, on the grounds that it is clearly unreasonable. For Alex Jones, it probably didn't matter - he was bankrupt either way, so the extreme amount of the award is just a middle finger from the jury, with no practical effect.
The normal corrective for such a thing is to appeal the amount of the award, on the grounds that it is clearly unreasonable. For Alex Jones, it probably didn't matter - he was bankrupt either way, so the extreme amount of the award is just a middle finger from the jury, with no practical effect.
It depends. If the courts went through the regular processes and he did nothing but defy them, you could argue that on top of the money, he should have been in jail by now.
5'500'000'000 people on the internet, which means an average of 27 cents per user. To say that there is "no possible way" of reaching that level of emotional damages is a stretch.
he wasn't paying for emotional damages done to the users of the internet. He was paying for emotional damages to 15 plaintiffs. 100 million is a lot of emotional suffering. Civil damages would have been lower if he killed the children himself. OJ paid 30 million civil damages for murder, and that was outstandingly high.
The courts might as well have assigned a 1 trillion dollars of damages.
The courts might as well have assigned a 1 trillion dollars of damages.
You could argue that he was fined for wilfully communicating his lies to everyone on the internet (at least in the anglosphere). The award made by the jury (not the court) was explicitly for punitive damages. They picked a number to ensure he would be wiped out financially, and I think he deserves every bit of suck he is currently experiencing.
This look like the same argument the record companies use for piracy.
Oh "we would have made 10 billion if everyone downloading illegally would have paid." Except of course most people wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't free.
So, how much is 1.5B, per 'victim' of some obvious crackpots' rants.
Oh "we would have made 10 billion if everyone downloading illegally would have paid." Except of course most people wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't free.
So, how much is 1.5B, per 'victim' of some obvious crackpots' rants.
What is unreasonable about it?
Someone should get to lie and spread conspiracy theories for decades and have to only pay a little? The man had been doing it because he could, not because he didn’t understand it was a lie. Then when called out and asked to stop, he kept doing it.
Someone should get to lie and spread conspiracy theories for decades and have to only pay a little? The man had been doing it because he could, not because he didn’t understand it was a lie. Then when called out and asked to stop, he kept doing it.
The amount of money versus the damage
The damage is tremendous, there are still people that are radicalized by it and spouting his lies today. Doesn’t sound like an unreasonable amount of money to me. What is unreasonable about the amount of money, what should have it been?
that isnt the damage that was assessed at 1.5 billion, and isn't what he was paying for. It is damages done specifically to 15 families for emotional pain and suffering.
Yes pain and suffering caused by lies used to radicalize people about a tragic event. Cute little caveat you’re willing to carve out in your head for lies, though.
Still waiting on your more appropriate number.
Still waiting on your more appropriate number.
oh f off. 'being radicalized' is not damage.
That argument fully supports the assertion that this is a government/systemic effort.
show some actual, material damage.
show some actual, material damage.
Being radicalized is damage. Some of those people radicalized will go on to perform mass shootings, literally. I would wager heavily that the risk of someone being a mass shooter amongst Jone's audience is much higher versus the average population.
damage to whom? Is that who got the the 1.5 billion? the money didnt go to fund deradicalization. It went to 15 people to compensate for the harm that those people specifically suffered.
If you are saying the fine is an appropriate punishment because of harm done to some other people, than that itself is illiberal. That isn't what Jones was on trial for.
That is intentionally giving an excessive penalty because you want to punish them for something else, that certainly wasn't litigated, and may not even be a crime.
Do you understand how people might be uncomfortable with that logic?
If you are saying the fine is an appropriate punishment because of harm done to some other people, than that itself is illiberal. That isn't what Jones was on trial for.
That is intentionally giving an excessive penalty because you want to punish them for something else, that certainly wasn't litigated, and may not even be a crime.
Do you understand how people might be uncomfortable with that logic?
It's not my logic, the jury decided it. I guess take it up with them.
The fines are mostly punitive, which I frankly support. Why? Because Jones deserves it. If anything, Jones should consider himself lucky to be surrounded by such outstanding citizens that they go through the legal system instead of taking matters into their own hands.
Maybe if it was someone else I would care more. But for him, I can't bring myself to care much. Maybe that's illogical, but I don't mind much. Life is always a case-by-case basis.
The fines are mostly punitive, which I frankly support. Why? Because Jones deserves it. If anything, Jones should consider himself lucky to be surrounded by such outstanding citizens that they go through the legal system instead of taking matters into their own hands.
Maybe if it was someone else I would care more. But for him, I can't bring myself to care much. Maybe that's illogical, but I don't mind much. Life is always a case-by-case basis.
I think people should also care about the integrity of the court system, and it should not be adapted on a case by case basis.
Case by case basis is the point of civil courts.
Material damage would be collecting money by spreading lies about dead children…1.5billion sounds perfect.
Why bother? Jones didn't provide credible evidence for the bullshit claim that the Sandy Hook massacre was fake, so he's being paid back in his own coin. Fuck him.
This is a good take:
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:s6j27rxb3ic2rxw73ixgqv2p/po...
If he wanted to avoid losing a billion and a half dollars, he sure went about it oddly.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:s6j27rxb3ic2rxw73ixgqv2p/po...
If he wanted to avoid losing a billion and a half dollars, he sure went about it oddly.
no, it wasn't a civil case.
https://x.com/AlexJonesMW3/status/1856495252850229386
its so frustrating that the only reason i am able to post this is because of X... because searching for this guys name or "poject veritas nudge" does not produce the result that it obviously should anywhere except for X. this is the tactic that is so often used by people like you. state something that is factually correct but completely incorrect and misleading when the full context is taken into account. even if this were an actual civil case brought on in the normal way it would still be the undeniable truth that one billion is silly and that this is political.
https://x.com/AlexJonesMW3/status/1856495252850229386
its so frustrating that the only reason i am able to post this is because of X... because searching for this guys name or "poject veritas nudge" does not produce the result that it obviously should anywhere except for X. this is the tactic that is so often used by people like you. state something that is factually correct but completely incorrect and misleading when the full context is taken into account. even if this were an actual civil case brought on in the normal way it would still be the undeniable truth that one billion is silly and that this is political.
It's not that simple though. The initial guilty verdict was not even the decision of a jury, but the result of a fairly abnormal procedural decision by the judge. There was then a follow-on hearing to determine the amount in damages, where Jones' lawyer "accidentally" sent loads of evidence, not required by discovery, directly to the prosecution. The entire suit against Jones is filled with interested parties and corruption. It is definitely not a good example of better arguments prevailing.
The USA has an adversarial legal system. Jones and his lawyers didn't do anything that they could have done to prevent this.
My understanding is that the suit against Jones was pretty standard in what damages it asked for, and that defendants (Jones in this case) are giving every opportunity to negotiate and legally lessen the damages. Jones' lawyers did not do this, apparently at his direction. Jones also refused to produce evidence that is always traded between parties in suits like this. There was a "Perry Mason" moment when Jones was on the stand testifying that revealed (due to an incredible screw up by his lawyers) that Jones had apparently withheld info he should have disclosed during discovery.
Basically, he directed his lawyers to do nothing, and they did so. The size of the judgement is statutory. It's not that there was a governmental thumb on the scale, it's that Jones and his lawyers didn't do anything to scale it down, or even do much to contradict the plaintiff's claims.
My understanding is that the suit against Jones was pretty standard in what damages it asked for, and that defendants (Jones in this case) are giving every opportunity to negotiate and legally lessen the damages. Jones' lawyers did not do this, apparently at his direction. Jones also refused to produce evidence that is always traded between parties in suits like this. There was a "Perry Mason" moment when Jones was on the stand testifying that revealed (due to an incredible screw up by his lawyers) that Jones had apparently withheld info he should have disclosed during discovery.
Basically, he directed his lawyers to do nothing, and they did so. The size of the judgement is statutory. It's not that there was a governmental thumb on the scale, it's that Jones and his lawyers didn't do anything to scale it down, or even do much to contradict the plaintiff's claims.
>There is no possible way that someone ranting on the internet can cause 1.5 billion of emotional damage
I'd like to see someone quantify what a reasonable number would be and how they came to it.
I served on a jury where we had to award similar damages. "Anyone got any ideas how to account for this?" I asked .... nobody had any good ones.
I'd like to see someone quantify what a reasonable number would be and how they came to it.
I served on a jury where we had to award similar damages. "Anyone got any ideas how to account for this?" I asked .... nobody had any good ones.
You cannot quantify it. IMHO emotional damage is not a thing, at least in terms of people merely saying things about you. Have you not heard 'sticks and stones...'?
If someone claims false facts about you, and is credible, and that then has a material impact on you, then sure, that might be something for the law.
Otherwise we'd be prosecuting every gossip.
If someone claims false facts about you, and is credible, and that then has a material impact on you, then sure, that might be something for the law.
Otherwise we'd be prosecuting every gossip.
> You cannot quantify it.
You can, within some reasonable margin, quantify the opportunity cost, though, which is what such reparations are intended to compensate.
Best I can find was that there were 15 plaintiffs, each representing a family. If we assume an average family of four, let's say there are 60 beneficiaries, or $25 million per person. That's about an order of magnitude more than the typical person would expect to make in their lifetime.
There should be something to suggest that they had an income trend or other demonstration of similar potential to have otherwise earned that much if Infowars/Alex Jones had not done what they did. I wonder what showed that?
You can, within some reasonable margin, quantify the opportunity cost, though, which is what such reparations are intended to compensate.
Best I can find was that there were 15 plaintiffs, each representing a family. If we assume an average family of four, let's say there are 60 beneficiaries, or $25 million per person. That's about an order of magnitude more than the typical person would expect to make in their lifetime.
There should be something to suggest that they had an income trend or other demonstration of similar potential to have otherwise earned that much if Infowars/Alex Jones had not done what they did. I wonder what showed that?
The number seems to be based on the fact that he made money of it. And if that was in the 100s of million, the fine should obviously be higher to ward of other people doing so (and not just have it as a cost of doing business). Kind of like the german movie piracy thing where the convicts had to give up thousands of bitcoin, which the state sold for more than 2 billion.
(Beside the fact that in other liberal democracies, he would be in prison now)
(Beside the fact that in other liberal democracies, he would be in prison now)
There were 2 issues. The first is that he made money off of it. The 2nd (and likely bigger issue) was that he repeatedly violated court orders (e.g. not complying with discovery, repeatedly lying under oath, threatening the jury on his show while the trial was going on, etc). Judges and juries generally really don't like it when one of the parties is lying their ass off and ignoring the judge's orders.
He made 100s millions specifically from libeling the SH families?
Or his entire lifetime earnings were 100s millions?
The point is the law has been used (imho totally disproportionately) to bankrupt someone for things they said, and therefore censor them.
The same as with Thiel and Gawker.
Whether or not you agree with what they say, they should be able to say it.
Or his entire lifetime earnings were 100s millions?
The point is the law has been used (imho totally disproportionately) to bankrupt someone for things they said, and therefore censor them.
The same as with Thiel and Gawker.
Whether or not you agree with what they say, they should be able to say it.
> where you prevail with better arguments
What is your argument? It sounds like you aren't very familiar with the case ("whatever the claim was"), and I don't think just declaring that something is ridiculous is a very good argument.
What is your argument? It sounds like you aren't very familiar with the case ("whatever the claim was"), and I don't think just declaring that something is ridiculous is a very good argument.
>I mean, good riddance to Alex Jones, but the tools and methods used were entirely inappropriate to a liberal democracy, where you prevail with better arguments.
The tools and methods used were "a trial by a jury of his peers," in which better arguments did prevail. That seems entirely appropriate to a liberal democracy.
The tools and methods used were "a trial by a jury of his peers," in which better arguments did prevail. That seems entirely appropriate to a liberal democracy.
They did prevail with better arguments… in front of a judge and jury.
The ends justify the means, in some circumstances. If you play fair against monsters, monsters win.
> but the tools and methods used were entirely inappropriate to a liberal democracy, where you prevail with better arguments.
I strongly disagree this is our operating environment, based on the evidence.
> but the tools and methods used were entirely inappropriate to a liberal democracy, where you prevail with better arguments.
I strongly disagree this is our operating environment, based on the evidence.
Better arguments prevail only works when participants argue in good faith grounded in curiously, evidence and reason. The guy who flips the table isn't proposing a novel gaming strategy, you just kick him out of board game club.
> If you play fair against monsters, monsters win.
If you become a monster to fight the monster, the monster always wins!
If you become a monster to fight the monster, the monster always wins!
As is part of the journey and story arc!
He knowingly rallied his supporters to harass the victims and their families. That's a bit more than "someone ranting on the internet".
I'm not aware of him suggesting people harass anybody. There's a wide line between saying crazy things and calling people to take specific action against specific people.
he repeatedly asked his audience to "investigate" the families and a number of them did so in person.
My dude. He was ranting for years to an audience of people self-selecting as susceptible to propaganda about how a specific group of normal ass people was assisting the Government in dismantling their second amendment rights.
Like no he didn't literally say "go torment them" but come the fuck on. The connection between the events here isn't 1/10th as complicated as most of Alex's actual theories, it's literally just a line.
Like no he didn't literally say "go torment them" but come the fuck on. The connection between the events here isn't 1/10th as complicated as most of Alex's actual theories, it's literally just a line.
This isn't the 18th century anymore where the dissemination of arguments barely traveled outside of the immediate vicinity, this is the globally networked firehose of disinformation blasted right in your face 24-hours a day. Relying on better arguments to win hearts and minds in this environment is hopelessly naive.
a liberal democracy, where you prevail with better arguments
This is only true when everyone argues in good faith, and is committed to accepting the possibility of being proven wrong. Sociopaths and other kinds of assholes exist and can corrupt any system if allowed to do so.
This is only true when everyone argues in good faith, and is committed to accepting the possibility of being proven wrong. Sociopaths and other kinds of assholes exist and can corrupt any system if allowed to do so.
deadbabe(1)
Funny concept. Shame that The Onion's writing these days so mid.
I think the Onion is as good as it ever was. The issue now is that the real news is so wild and unhinged the Onion doesn't have that segment cornered anymore.
The Onion youtube vids of the late 2000's were phenomenal. It was all downhill from there imo. Take a look at this recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2niC4ACCp20. I don't like Taylor Swift but this is just not funny. I don't see what the point of it is is.
Compare to this celebrity satire of the golden era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9QisdRPwEM.
Compare to this celebrity satire of the golden era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9QisdRPwEM.
The new one is really bad. Feels so fake. And the anchor can't role play. The old one is so much better. If you don't listen, you don't even get that it is a joke.
When you reach the point where you are cross checking a comedy website's comedy against itself you might have caught a case of the old.
I remember hearing my dad talk about how SNL isn't as funny as it used to be, too. It happens to the best of us.
I remember hearing my dad talk about how SNL isn't as funny as it used to be, too. It happens to the best of us.
"[Thing] that just so coincided with my formative years was the absolute best. it's been downhill ever since" is a tale as old as the hills.
That is true, but the Onion is also a shell of its former self. The Onion became a household name because of how widely consumed it used to be. It doesn't have anywhere near that reach or cultural influence today.
I think the problem is that American politics has become so polarized, that humor anywhere is more likely to be partisan political and written directly in reaction to that week’s events. The development has been observed for late-night television, and it’s not a new thing with The Onion either: already over a decade ago, friends who had grown up on classic 1990s Onion were bemoaning this shift. Sure, The Onion had used political figures in jokes before (“Congress Debates Rush”, “Clinton Declares Self President For Life”) but those politicians could have stood for anything; there was very little reference to specific policies or controversies.
Nah, my dude. 90's Onion was peak, todays Onion is weak.
https://imgur.com/a/Jhk4CPq
https://imgur.com/a/Jhk4CPq
Oh come on now. The world wasn't just sent to live with it's auntie and uncle in Bel-Air. The distressed sullen worldview might be new to you, but people certainly had it back when I found the Onion regularly quite enjoyable too.
How is the Onion supposed to top the actual cabinet appointments, for example?
In 2004, George W Bush was re-elected. At that time, a plausible Onion story might have been that George W Bush was going to appoint a vaccine denier HHS and someone who was investigated by the DOJ as AG, and that would have been, like, mildly funny (which was always the Onion's thing, really; it was almost never _great_), because haha, the president popularly considered to be a bit incompetent is appointing obviously unsuitable people, how amusing, but also, well, a bit of fun, not real. (Actually, if anything I think this might have strayed a bit too far into absurdity for the Onion's liking, particularly Gaetz.)
Fast-forward to 2024, and, well... It just doesn't work as well anymore. Like, imagine an Onion story about Trump's appointments. What could it possibly say that would be stranger than the reality?
Fast-forward to 2024, and, well... It just doesn't work as well anymore. Like, imagine an Onion story about Trump's appointments. What could it possibly say that would be stranger than the reality?
Maybe appointing Paula Deen as the secretary of health. Show a "food pyramid" that is just multiple pies stacked on top of each other with a side of melted butter to wash it down with, and her vice secretary is a disgraced police officer with over 800 sanctions kitted out in full milspec riot gear whose job it is to beat every child who fails to eat 15 pies a day into submission?
It's been on the upswing ever since it was purchased this year. It's time to come back.
I've been reading it for 20 years and it's as good as it's ever been
https://theonion.com/biden-trump-die-2-minutes-apart-holding...
https://theonion.com/biden-trump-die-2-minutes-apart-holding...
I don't think it's changed that much. There's so much more comedy and parody content out there these days that our collective standards have changed. The onion's heyday was when the internet was a lot smaller.
I think the Babylon Bee has been a good replacement.
I opened Babylon Bee and all I saw was mockery of already marginalized people. I guess that's funny if you hate them.
I did see two objectionable articles. One about a 'car for woman that crashes' and one about the TGBL+ members of the Biden administration. This out of 10 or 20
Babylon Bee notoriously punches down and is the epitome of the "one joke" trope.
They're an uninspired impersonation of The Onion, with a clear political purpose.
They're an uninspired impersonation of The Onion, with a clear political purpose.
Browsing their site I found an article that is making light of the suppression of women voters by using sexist tropes.
> Hundreds of thousands of women across America were left standing utterly clueless as to what to do at a voting booth after their husbands failed to tell them who to vote for.
> Voting at several polling stations ground to a halt after all of the booths became occupied by bewildered women. "This is a disaster," said poll worker John Bingham. "We've had thirty women taking up every booth for the past three hours, just staring like deer in headlights. We offered to bring them lunch while they made their choice, but they couldn't decide on a restaurant."
> At publishing time, voting stations had been forced to designate one voting booth for men only to allow voting to continue.
Given the history of women's right to vote, current laws causing women to needlessly die, and that many women today are undoubtedly being coerced by spouses to vote a certain way, calling this simply tone deaf would be extremely charitable. It is only truly funny if you have "women, am I right" as one of your shibboleths. Without that, it is clear misogyny.
All this to say I don't think a site promoting sexist views is a good alternative for a site that has made a master-class punchline out of trying to take a terrorist bigot off the air.
> Hundreds of thousands of women across America were left standing utterly clueless as to what to do at a voting booth after their husbands failed to tell them who to vote for.
> Voting at several polling stations ground to a halt after all of the booths became occupied by bewildered women. "This is a disaster," said poll worker John Bingham. "We've had thirty women taking up every booth for the past three hours, just staring like deer in headlights. We offered to bring them lunch while they made their choice, but they couldn't decide on a restaurant."
> At publishing time, voting stations had been forced to designate one voting booth for men only to allow voting to continue.
Given the history of women's right to vote, current laws causing women to needlessly die, and that many women today are undoubtedly being coerced by spouses to vote a certain way, calling this simply tone deaf would be extremely charitable. It is only truly funny if you have "women, am I right" as one of your shibboleths. Without that, it is clear misogyny.
All this to say I don't think a site promoting sexist views is a good alternative for a site that has made a master-class punchline out of trying to take a terrorist bigot off the air.
> the suppression of women voters
That's the joke. It's 2024 and that's not a thing anymore in America.
That's the joke. It's 2024 and that's not a thing anymore in America.
JD Vance has proposed that people with children should get more voting power. That sort of pressure would disenfranchise women who elect to not have children, or unduly pressure women to have children.
Vance’s backer, Peter Thiel, has also previously implied that women being able to vote has weakened democracy.
It’s 2024 in America, and this is a joke indeed.
Vance’s backer, Peter Thiel, has also previously implied that women being able to vote has weakened democracy.
It’s 2024 in America, and this is a joke indeed.
The Babylon Bee has gotten better, but it's still pretty amateurish compared to the best of The Onion. It's nice to have a satirical publication that leans the other way for balance.
Honest question: how so? The Onion has always billed itself as a "news" source, and parodied both form and content of traditional newspapers and TV news. The Babylon Bee seems to just put out jokes, without much of a unifying thematic framework.
The Babylon Bee occasionally takes a good swipe at liberals and democrats.
The Onion will go down in history as one of the most influential satire projects of all time, and is filled with genuinely talented writers and comedians. Even their early Youtube work was prescient and brilliant.
They aren't even playing the same game.
The Onion will go down in history as one of the most influential satire projects of all time, and is filled with genuinely talented writers and comedians. Even their early Youtube work was prescient and brilliant.
They aren't even playing the same game.
i disagree, they try to be a more right-wing version of the onion but they lack the surrealism of the onion.
comparing both instagram pages, BB posts mostly political content and they're all critical of democrats/liberals. the onion's page has much more variety
https://youtu.be/8wHMaJ6AtNs?feature=shared&t=8
comparing both instagram pages, BB posts mostly political content and they're all critical of democrats/liberals. the onion's page has much more variety
https://youtu.be/8wHMaJ6AtNs?feature=shared&t=8
LOL conservatives
[deleted]
I think it’s more that the world is now the onion.
One option for the onion is to end being an entertaining opinion journal with very nuanced and layered (intended) points of view. They already are almost there, what place do they have where so many in the media are parodies of themselves ?
You think the world has gotten dumber? By the numbers it’s smarter even if it’s unevenly distributed and less smart than people’s vain sense of cultural identity leads them to believe.
For example; ~15% in the US have earned more than a bachelor’s. While public polls show people believe close to 50% have a PhD. Close to 50% have a bachelors.
So the majority misunderstand ground truth but understand how to abstractly find the answer.
Seems better to have people know how to count their way out of a bag and miss some inane specific than everyone being actually uneducated.
For example; ~15% in the US have earned more than a bachelor’s. While public polls show people believe close to 50% have a PhD. Close to 50% have a bachelors.
So the majority misunderstand ground truth but understand how to abstractly find the answer.
Seems better to have people know how to count their way out of a bag and miss some inane specific than everyone being actually uneducated.
If life could stop imitating art now, I'd appreciate it very much.
It's like the conundrum that the writers of South Park had, reality became worse than the worst they could think of. To the point where they really struggled when Trump actually won in 2016.
Kids these days will never know how funny the onion used to be
They used to distribute hard copies in big cities because people actually read it
They started distributing hard copies again to folks who sign up.
The lack of copies on street corners has a lot more to do with the collapse in print advertising revenues than it does the jokes printed inside.
The lack of copies on street corners has a lot more to do with the collapse in print advertising revenues than it does the jokes printed inside.
I actually have a copy that I stumbled across recently at a book store near me. I'm sure it won't be like the old days, but it was really cool to pick a hard copy up while out and about in town.
You can buy hard copies again if you subscribe. They used to give it away free in the 1990s because the world wasn't as hyper-capitalistic and it was practical to publish a free paper and put metal boxes on the street to distribute it while making a modest profit with advertising.
Did you read the link? Top notch comedy writing.
When The Onion itself goes bankrupt in the not too distant future, can Alex Jones buy the Onion and get the domain back?
[deleted]
Alex Jones response: https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1857058831135645739