191–200 of 297 posts
Organizations love to run controlled opposition. Just came out that the Southern poverty law center has been funding the KKK of all things. https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdal/pr/federal-grand-jury-char...
It's sort of tragic the onion takeover came on the heels of him being right about SPLC. There's something morally questionable about the largest civil fine in history being against a guy who accused a shooting of being a false flag and then apologized a few weeks later when better information came to light. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been sued, but rather it feels like the wrong amount for how apologetic he was…
This is a blatant lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stella Liebeck was awarded 2.7 million in punitive damages, that seems like a much more reasonable number than 1.4 billion.
It was considerably less on appeal and the mcdonalds lawyers didn't anatagonize the court every chance they got and it was literally 30 years ago and there was only one victim. Just with inflation (6.4m) and number of victims (22?) you get a much larger number real quick.
This one seems to have some info:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/04/21/the-on...
Tldr; it isn't a done deal
"The deal is not for The Onion to own Infowars, but rather to have a temporary license to the intellectual property of Infowars’ parent company, Free Speech Systems.
Papers filed in state court indicate that the deal entails The Onion paying $81,000 a month to license the Infowars.com domain and brand name, as reported by KOUW,"
https://www.kuow.org/stories/the-onion-has-agreed-to-a-new-d...
"The deal calls for The Onion to pay $81,000 a month to license the Infowars.com domain and brand name, which the receiver says will "cover carrying costs to preserve and protect the assets of the receivership estate" until an appeal filed by Jones is decided and the path is cleared for a sale."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No joke, I use Facebook every year or so to access the marketplace and at the time my feed was roughly half rage-bait, and the other half being what I can only describe as AI-generated almost-pornography. Both had thousands of what looked like genuinely real interactions per post, mostly from developing country users.
I'm loathe to defend Facebook but most people's experience is not yours. The algorithm pushes content you're most likely to engage with, in your case it has nothing to go on so probably pushes whatever causes the most reaction in general.
My conclusion is not that the algorithm shows you things it THINKS you will engage with, but rather things they WANT you to engage with because it makes them money somehow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm loathe to defend Facebook but most people's experience is not yours. The algorithm pushes content you're most likely to engage with, in your case it has nothing to go on so probably pushes whatever causes the most reaction in general.
> I'm loathe to defend Facebook but most people's experience is not yours. The algorithm pushes content you're most likely to engage with, in your case it has nothing to go on so probably pushes whatever causes the most reaction in general. It think that's a contradiction: if your latter statement is correct, his experience is a peek at "most people's experience."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can only speak for myself, but punitive damages of 1-2 million per complainant (22 I think) seems entirely reasonable and in line with previous rulings? But let me also flip the on it's head, if 1.4 billion dollars is an appropriate punishment to you then is there any amount of money that would be too much?
I don't think your values are sufficient deterrent for the kind of behavior Alex Jones and InfoWars exhibited and substantially profited from. They made more than the 22-44 million you're suggesting. They would still have profited from their actions. I think it needs to be large enough to be a real deterrent. So it needs to be large enough that there is a real risk of turning substantial profit into substantial loss.…
Maybe I’m out of touch, but doesn’t a $1.4b dollar settlement for this seem rather… large?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is a ruling in a civil court not a form of government prosecution? It would be more correct to say that your first amendment rights stop at defaming others.
The government didn't bring this civil suit. Ruling on civil disputes is the government's role. That's not what prosecution means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an absurd line, and plainly wrong. If I were to bring a civil suit against you because the comment above offended my sensibilities, it would be quickly thrown out of court because it is your first amendment right to say anything you like, with certain exceptions that the government recognizes as limitations of this right. Even though this is a civil matter, it is still a judgement on government law. This is n…
Alex Jones will not have a criminal record as a result of this. He has not been declared as committing a crime. He did take actions that, by civil law, created civil liabilities. He was sued over those liabilities. He failed to participate in the civil litigation process and lost badly as a result. Civil and criminal law are not the same thing and your insistence otherwise doesn't change the reality.