The Onion to Take over InfoWars • Hacker News Board

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#91

Post by guzfip » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 12:57 PM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #55

qnleigh wrote: post #17

When this all started, the Onion released a priceless 'press statement': "Through it all, InfoWars has shown an unswerving commitment to manufacturing anger and radicalizing the most vulnerable members of society—values that resonate deeply with all of us at Global Tetrahedron. No price would be too high for such a cornucopia of malleable assets and minds. And yet, in a stroke of good fortune, a formidable special in…

Brilliant plans for the future: https://theonion.info/?p=1 > Such is the InfoWars I envision: An infinite virtual surface teeming with ads. Not just ads, but scams! Not just scams, but lies with no object, free radical misinformation, sentences and images so poorly thought out that they are unhealthy even to view for just a few seconds. The InfoWars of old was only the prototype for the hell I know we can build toget…

> A digital platform where, every day, visitors sacrifice themselves at altars of delusion and misery, their minds fully disintegrating on contact.

Zuckerberg already did it.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#92

Post by anonymars » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:01 PM UTC

pippy360 wrote: post #79

pie_flavor wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is that Jones blew up the court process every chance he got, setting a new record for contempt fining. The most important piece was refusing to comply with discovery (his lawyer was so bad-behaved here he ended up with a disciplinary suspension). As a result Jones received a default judgement, i.e. the plaintiffs win by default and he doesn't get to argue his case. This also means the plaintiffs get every…

Do you have a good/entertaining source for this? I'd love to read (or watch/listen) more about it

I think you'll enjoy this brief clip (3 min) when it's revealed the defense lawyer accidentally provided the plaintiffs a copy of his entire phone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgxZSBfGXUM

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#93

Post by phatfish » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:01 PM UTC

noirscape wrote: post #71

mikeodds wrote: post #25

Maybe I’m out of touch, but doesn’t a $1.4b dollar settlement for this seem rather… large?

Besides Jones and his lawyer absolutely botching his defense and basically giving up the case (and pissing off the courts as I understand it, which is a bad fucking idea and usually also leads to larger fines), the $1.4 billion is just what Jones managed to rack it up to before entering bankruptcy proceedings, which froze his debt collectors out for a bit. Alongside the class action, Jones was iirc also facing severa…

Surely he just waits for the Trump pardon in 2028? Or is this something he can't be pardoned for?

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#94

Post by mech998877 » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:02 PM UTC

defrost wrote: post #62

dirasieb wrote: post #60

i don’t understand how this is not a 1st amendment violation can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc

First amendment prevents the federal government from preventing speech or punishing for speech (subject to a few exceptions). This was not that. This was a civil defamation case; the parents bought a case of actual material harm and harrassment of epic proportions before two seperate judges in two seperate states and both courts made the finding that Jones had indeed caused harm and harrassment .. and continued to do…

With regards to defamation law, the first amendment does result in the USA having a higher bar for prosecution than most countries- GP still has a valid question.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#95

Post by cap11235 » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:03 PM UTC

phatfish wrote: post #93

noirscape wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides Jones and his lawyer absolutely botching his defense and basically giving up the case (and pissing off the courts as I understand it, which is a bad fucking idea and usually also leads to larger fines), the $1.4 billion is just what Jones managed to rack it up to before entering bankruptcy proceedings, which froze his debt collectors out for a bit. Alongside the class action, Jones was iirc also facing severa…

Surely he just waits for the Trump pardon in 2028? Or is this something he can't be pardoned for?

It's a civil lawsuit.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#96

Post by sophacles » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

mikeodds wrote: post #25

Maybe I’m out of touch, but doesn’t a $1.4b dollar settlement for this seem rather… large?

No, it doesn't seem rather large.

The man made a fortune destroying the reputations of some people, and he did so by (provably) intentionally lying about them, without their consent and with nothing paid to them. They deserve every peny of that - he stole their reputations and as with all theft, reparations are logical.

In addition he grew his following with those lies, and that following will continue to give him money. This is the interest and dividends of those lies.... it's the result of him investing the reputatoins he destroyed. Since you can't sell a following, but it's still a profit generating asset, it's fair to make Jones turn over those dividends. This ensures that he'll be turning over those dividends for a long time.

Finally there's a punative component - making sure he doesn't continue to maliciously destroy reputations for profit. It's a good idea to make sure such a pile of shit thinks twice about he tells more lies to the morons and trash that follow him.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#97

Post by fullshark » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC

dirasieb wrote: post #60

i don’t understand how this is not a 1st amendment violation can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc

This seems like a good faith question to me, Jones clearly operated thinking he was protected under the first amendment, and it was not obvious to me he was going to lose his court case despite morally finding his actions repugnant.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#98

Post by ziml77 » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:17 PM UTC

Schiendelman wrote: post #76

mcdonje wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not going to have a rehash of the McDonald's coffee settlement argument here, are we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages

She deserved way more than that for the way they tried to smear her afterward!

Seriously, the reporting on that was so terribly biased that many people still think it was a frivolous lawsuit.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#99

Post by sophacles » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:21 PM UTC

phendrenad2 wrote: post #9

A million dollars a year for... what? A gag that fans of infowars won't watch, and there aren't enough anti-fans to appreciate? It feels personal at this point.

It is personal. He intentionally lied about the parents of dead children. Thats as personal of an attack as it gets. Of course those parents are going to take it personally and go after the sick pile of shit who lied about them.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#100

Post by lateforwork » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 1:25 PM UTC

mech998877 wrote: post #94

defrost wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First amendment prevents the federal government from preventing speech or punishing for speech (subject to a few exceptions). This was not that. This was a civil defamation case; the parents bought a case of actual material harm and harrassment of epic proportions before two seperate judges in two seperate states and both courts made the finding that Jones had indeed caused harm and harrassment .. and continued to do…

With regards to defamation law, the first amendment does result in the USA having a higher bar for prosecution than most countries- GP still has a valid question.

The word "prosecution" implies criminal case brought by the government. This was a civil case brought by the victims.

If you mean higher bar for litigation, then maybe this lawsuit and its outcome shows that the bar isn't as high as you think when it comes to defamation?