Live data from Hacker News

At long last, InfoWars is ours

theonion.com

181–190 of 341 posts

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#181
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

They are indeed cringe worthy. Even my four year old cries when his spoon is the wrong kind of spoon. This does not make him spoon-phobic. It means he is a kid who has no control of his emotions. A baby has even less understanding. Everyone who is debating the homophobia of the baby is projecting.

I believe they call it "humour".

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#182
Please can someone correct my opinion on this because I'm sure I'm missing something.

I find it crazy that in the US you can't take an opinion on something without risking being bankrupted because that thing you said is later proven untrue and that it hurt someone's feelings – feeling which in the US have a monetary value of billions apparently.

I agree that the media should be evidence based and it's bad when the media is presenting things which are clearly false, but I also think that sometimes the evidence is misleading and speculation can be useful to get to the truth.

Surely cases like this show that it's simply far too dangerous to report on something in the US which might both upset people and could later proven to be false?

We have a similar issue in the UK where even when it's widely understood that someone is abusing kids, if they're famous our media basically can't say anything because they'll risk being sued. While our law is well intentioned, it seems that it really just suppresses the free exchange of information which has repeatedly led to harms against children. The speculation while often harmful is sometimes useful.

I just feel like there's a middle ground here. Maybe you can sue, but perhaps your feelings are only worth a few hundred thousand pounds? I get the US is much richer than the UK but being sued for billions for being wrong and hurting peoples feelings just seems insane. And I agree Jones was completely wrong to have said what he said.

Why am I wrong on this? I hate holding this opinion and would like it changed.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#183
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When corporations are sued, they tend to take the lawsuits seriously, which is probably a big factor in why their outcomes are so different than Jones'.

Also idk what corporation has gone out of its way to slander innocent families

I mean, yeah, but the subtext of the preceding comment was that corporations have done stuff like Bhopal, which while not as luridly evil as what Jones did was still objectively worse as a civil offense cognizable to a court of law.

But when a corporation does something like Bhopal, you can generally count on them hyperprofessionally attending to every detail of the ensuring tort case. Unlike Jones, who at literally every step of the legal process thumbed his nose at the court, including, at one point, attempting to boycott the process outright.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#184
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Birds aren't real 2.0 I love it.

Right up with the crypto scam that followed it. Great. In case you didn't know, the creators of Birds aren't real rug pulled and stole millions with their crypto coin.

I was unaware of that, disappointing.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reasonable by what metric? I've seen judgements that are tiny fractions of this for corporate crimes that affects hundreds or thousands of people. Is it reasonable because Alex Jones can afford it (hint: he can't, not even if he wasn't hiding his money)? This judgement ends up being more akin to punishing him by forcing him off of his platform, which is actually unconstitutional even for a shitbag like him.

> I've seen judgements that are tiny fractions of this for corporate crimes that affects hundreds or thousands of people. Is it reasonable because Alex Jones can afford it (hint: he can't, not even if he wasn't hiding his money)? If there is one thing courts do not like, it is people thinking they are above the law and defy the courts. Jones was dumb enough to do so multiple times . FAFO. As for the high monetary amo…

I was a juror once for a civil case that lead to some fairly significant harm. It was a very odd experience to have to put a dollar to it at the end. The plaintiff attorney gave us numbers for the damages but the defense at the end just basically said "if you decide against my client, just be reasonable" which means we had to just kind of put a dollar value to everything. Some of it like estimates of labor lost were easy, but having to put a dollar value to the pain of a severe injury wasn't something any of us really felt prepared for.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#187
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite headlines: "Video: ‘Homophobic’ 6-Week-Old Baby Cries After Gay Dad Tells Him ‘There Is No Mama’" "UK Approves Bills To Remove Criminal Penalties For Women Who Commit Their Own Abortions" "Nigerian Photographed Killing Cat And Trying To Cook It In Front Of Children’s Playground In Italy"

[flagged]

Do you think learning that 3/3 stories they thought were so ridiculous they were obviously fake, were in fact real, will cause them to reconsider their view of the world in any way?

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 6-Week-Old Baby I appreciate this story appears to be all about the rage-bate headlines, but I don't believe that either six-week old babies say "Mama" (with purpose) or that a baby that age would be capable of responding in the way described to an adult saying "there is no Mama". It doesn't work like that at that age. [Source: have three kids]

Source: the video: https://x.com/OliLondonTV/status/2045335697893269640 Edit: but it is likely the baby is older than 6 weeks in that video - this seems to be the source of confusion (read carefully - the 6-week-old video was a different, older video): In December, when Texson was 6 weeks old, he shared a video with the text overlay “6 week old homophobic baby,” which was viewed more than 36 million times. In that vi…

"6-Week-Old" babies don't have the muscle strength to hold their heads horizontally like that (and IMHO it would be foolhardy to wave them around like that)...

Pronounced social smiling (as in the video) already by six weeks would also pretty unusual.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply untrue. Rupert Murdoch has never had an ownership stake in The Onion. It is currently held privately by Twilio cofounder and former CEO Jeff Lawson and former NBC News reporter Ben Collins. Was this a mistake, something you mis-remembered?

Or perhaps obvious parody content, such as the type The Onion might publish.

C’mon. Making this argument doesn’t even respect yourself, let alone anyone else.

Re: At long last, InfoWars is ours

#190
post #6

So they are now setting the content on infowars.com? Honestly, I can't tell since everything on that site looks so fake it isn't believable. The onion transition may be hard to detect.

I visited with my family in rural Missouri recently. Alex Jones and InfoWars is gospel to them. I was amazed at how many times cited him as an authority on various topics. I thought they were joking, but apparently, Obama made a promise with his father before his passing that he would destroy the United States. Oh, and of course, Obama is Satan, and Trump was sent by God to protect us all. Of course.

As of even more recently, Jones believes Trump is under demonic influences.
Post reply on HN