Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#911

Post by itsoktocry »

dylan604 wrote: post #556
itsoktocry wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know, if Elon buys it at the same levels of inflated values he did for Twitter so that the creditors get paid, He paid $44B. He probably could have got it for less at the time, but if you think it's not worth that, I'm not sure what to tell you. It's literally where all news gets broken. All of it. And he's using it to influence global politics.

Inflated values was Musk's own words, not mine. To the point, he was forced by a court to honor his original higher price than what he wanted to pay after re-evaluating it. Not sure why you're quibbling over the fact that everyone thinks Musk paid an inflated price.

>Not sure why you're quibbling over the fact that everyone thinks Musk paid an inflated price.

Not everyone thinks this. Are you talking about the financial geniuses in the comments?

>To the point, he was forced by a court to honor his original higher price than what he wanted to pay after re-evaluating it.

What's your point? The original comment was to imply "Haha! Elon overpaid for Twitter!". The company is worth more than $44B. Not sure why you're quibbling about being able to buy at the absolute rock bottom price, even when he got and will continue to get value from the purchase.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#912

Post by itsoktocry »

motorest wrote: post #563
itsoktocry wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know, if Elon buys it at the same levels of inflated values he did for Twitter so that the creditors get paid, He paid $44B. He probably could have got it for less at the time, but if you think it's not worth that, I'm not sure what to tell you. It's literally where all news gets broken. All of it. And he's using it to influence global politics.

> He paid $44B. He probably could have got it for less at the time, but if you think it's not worth that, I'm not sure what to tell you. It's indisputable that Twitter was worth $44B at the time of the sale because by definition the price of something is what the buyer and seller agree to perform the transaction. What's also indisputable is that even Elon Musk was refusing to pay that much for Twitter and tried to ba…

>It's indisputable that Twitter was worth $44B at the time of the sale because by definition the price of something is what the buyer and seller agree to perform the transaction.

I know you think this is some kind of deep philosophical insight, but there's an entire industry built around getting value from an asset beyond the price paid. We don't live in a world of perfect information.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#913

Post by redeux »

Alupis wrote: post #864
redeux wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the implication isn’t that he’d be fired. Rather that doing the bidding of the far right (as instructed) was the deal he made to get the job. I look at it as payment for services rendered.

So what would be the consequences of not honoring these, "instructions"? Oh, nothing?

There are absolutely social, political, and economic consequences. Those in the political class don’t exist in a separate bubble from each other. There are natural consequences for breaking from the party line, especially on the right, which demands complete fealty.

Natural consequences might be that the judge and their family no longer get to go to the yacht extravagant social gatherings, their kids may no longer have an in at their preferred university, or they may have even have the propaganda machine turned against them - potentially endangering them.

There are so many potential consequences that it’s not even worth trying to mention them all. These are all real threats that keep people in these types of positions aligned with the original intent for putting them there.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#914

Post by DrillShopper »

cogman10 wrote: post #836
celdon25 wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is because he has a long history of promoting/installing people that he believes (whether or not it turns out to be the case) will obey him above all else. Is there any evidence of this besides some angry tweets? If this was widely accepted as fact, I don't think the constitutionalists on the right would have supported his re-election, as that doesn't align with separation of powers.

Best evidence would probably the current cabinet picks. Plenty of un and underqualified people are slated for very high positions. Furthermore, the primary thrust of Project 2025 was to install people loyal to trump above all else. The authors of 2025 are on the Trump cabinet. I can give more details if you like, but I think that's a bit OT from the current discussion for AJ's bankruptcy. Also, I don't agree with the…

As a former resident of Florida I have never heard Pam B(l)ondi express a rational thought

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#915

Post by TheFreim »

lbwtaylor wrote: post #895
ljsprague wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he built a business out of attacking and re-victimizing parents whose children were murdered That not what he built his business on. That was one (bad) thing he did.

That is exactly what he built his business on - attacking people with bald face lies and using the generated outrage to sell snake oil.

> He built a business out of attacking and re-victimizing *parents whose children were murdered.* He's scum of the earth.

> attacking *people* with bald face lies and using the generated outrage to sell snake oil.

You made a specific claim, were refuted because that specific claim is clearly false, and now you've made a general claim while presenting it as if it's the same as the specific claim. This is not intellectually honest.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#916

Post by tetnis »

jcgrillo wrote: post #865
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> auction failed to maximize the amount of money I don't run auctions but something tells me there's a lot of research behind them that goes into optimizing for this precise thing. It's wild that the judge is disregarding the expertise of the person who was appointed by another judge to run the auction without asserting that the person is not qualified to run it.

It's not only a question of qualifications, they're complaining about a quantity which is not measurable. The auction concluded with a certain maximum bid. Now prove to me there could have been a higher bid. You can't! We measured all the bids, and this one was the highest! EDIT: I'm sorry your honor but the halting problem is undecidable?

this is not the halting problem.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#917

Post by acdha »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #859
vizzier wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but Fox Settled the dominion lawsuit for $725M [1]. So this type of harassment means big judgments against you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox...

You can see dominion machines hacked live at DEFCON voting village.

First, that’s not the same as what fox news alleged - if they’d simply run a “hacker x reported being able to alter the software” story they’d have been in the clear legally.

Second, elections are systems, not individual voting machines. Someone being able to tamper with unlimited physical access is not the same as being able to do so in an actual election (e.g. your bank’s PC probably aren’t perfect either but you can’t just sit down and start hacking them), and that’s only a small part of the actual system - as a simple example, if someone could make it record a vote for a different candidate than you tapped, it’d be caught by your review of the paper ballot which is actually counted. If they messed with the counting system, a hand recount would show huge discrepancies.

The underlying thing to remember here is that nobody seriously believed there was a problem. They started backwards from the desire to pretend Trump didn’t lose and repeated conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory as needed to say that outcome was real. That’s why they lost the lawsuit because it was clear that it was essentially political advertising pretending to be news, with complete disregard for the truth. That also forced the lawsuit since left unchallenged the smear campaign would have harmed Dominion’s business, whereas if there’d been anything factual the company would have been compelled to fix a real problem.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#918

Post by giancarlostoro »

jjeaff wrote: post #583
giancarlostoro wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nancy Grace comes to mind, who has far more reach being on national television. She made claims about people who were later found to be guilty. Her speculation pushed harassment.

Alex Jones has far more listeners than Nancy Grace has ever had. He was pulling down 8 figures selling fake boner pills and tin foil hats on his merch website.

I'm unable to find a number about how many people listened to him around the time period, but still arguably, she was a very well known public figure, even if some people didn't watch her. My mom would watch her show religiously.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#919

Post by throw10920 »

throwaway10210 wrote: post #898
dang wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common claim, but it only ever seems to be made by people with a strong ideological commitment who are mad that the opposing commitment isn't banned on the site. In other words, the complaint is that we don't moderate HN based on ideology. Since to do that would contradict HN's reason for existing ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... ), I'm not inclined to start. The irony is th…

[flagged]

I also spend many hours per week and haven't seen something like this in months. I don't think you're being honest, especially because you're on a new account and likely are an alt of another poster here. You're definitely stretching the definitions of "plenty" and "at every opportunity" at the very least, if not outright misrepresenting the situation as more common than it actually is.

If the comments made are downvoted or flagged, then your claim is also dishonest, because contrary to your claims, nothing is "festering" because its getting penalized and hidden and banned.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#920

Post by Cumpiler69 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #478
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A worked example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)

A better example in the US is the thousands of innocent black men who have been hanged from a tree because "everyone knows they did it"

>A better example in the US is the thousands of innocent black men who have been hanged from a tree because "everyone knows they did it"

Atrocities against people were committed using this logic since the dawn of humanity. The bigger problem is this way of thinking is used to justify the vilification of people even to this day. See debates on supporting US election candidates.

Post reply on HN