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

The Onion to Take over InfoWars

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 297 posts

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#231

Post by glenstein »

treebeard901 wrote: post #7
razorbeamz wrote: post #2

I hope Dan and Jordan can get the desk like they've always wanted.

I'm concerned they won't know what to do without Alex. Already going back over shows from 2006...

They've been pretty creative in setting their sights on the likes of Tucker Carlson and others. There truly is no one like Alex, and so I think there is a very real possibility that the show as we know it could fundamentally change if Alex stops producing content.

But I think Dan and Jordan are interesting enough as personalities and bring really good analysis and there are plenty of other worthy targets. So I do think things would change in a significant way if they ever had to veer away from Alex Jones stuff, but I would believe in their ability to reinvent themselves and train their fire on new targets.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#233

Post by dmd »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #230
dmd wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really amazing how different people's experiences with Facebook are. I have been on Facebook since it started (I was at one of the original schools, I was in that famous first million users). My feed is entirely photos of friends' kids, invitations to local events (things I actually attend), folk-dancing groups I'm involved with, and the like. I have literally never, not once, not ever, seen any rage-bait or pol…

Huh, I wonder if there's a flag on the first million users (or some proxy for "Zuck's cohort") from the worst of the slop shoveling. It would sure save him some pointed remarks.

My wife's feed is very similar and she only got an account a few years ago.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#235

Post by jjfiwjeilrj »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the judge's ruling that led to the current situation seems particularly dystopian. Infowars demonstrated value, and The Onion turning it into a parody would undermine that value, so whoever buys it has to continue delivering on the original value proposition (i.e. continue spewing racist paranoid propaganda) so creditors can get their expected value out of it? What the fuck is wrong with the USA?

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#236

Post by SirMaster »

dmd wrote: post #220
z2 wrote: post #121

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.

It's really amazing how different people's experiences with Facebook are. I have been on Facebook since it started (I was at one of the original schools, I was in that famous first million users). My feed is entirely photos of friends' kids, invitations to local events (things I actually attend), folk-dancing groups I'm involved with, and the like. I have literally never, not once, not ever, seen any rage-bait or pol…

Same, i don't see any problem with my facebook feed, it's all just friends and family postings and local events and some local news posts and things like that.

No political content or anything I would consider rage bait.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#237

Post by somebehemoth »

some_random wrote: post #197
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

So that kinda sums it up then, people who disagree with you (including me) think that the punitive damages should be rooted in punishing Alex Jones et al, not in destroying him forever.

The punishment was made to be a deterrent for all who might consider doing the same as Alex Jones. You have made a straw man about destroying him forever.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#238

Post by SirMaster »

jandrese wrote: post #160
afavour wrote: post #143

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.

No matter what you follow if FB thinks you are a man it's going to feed you those foreign near-porn shorts. I'm not sure if it is just what escapes across national boundaries or if social media in other countries is just way more horny, but every time I see a post where the text has been auto-translated from a different language it is thirst trap content. This is true across multiple social media platforms. It's espe…

Not my experience at all. I have never seen anything remotely like you describe on my feed.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#239

Post by luke727 »

aqme28 wrote: post #23
luke727 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention Alex Jones is still up and running elsewhere spreading his nonsense and hawking his merch. So it's a cute gag, I guess, and gets the Sandy Hook families some money, but doesn't really change the status quo.

I disagree. It's a lot better than if it were bought by simply a different far-right media outlet. This keeps it out of that ecosystem, which I think is a really good thing.

It's just a domain name. The Onion taking it over does virtually nothing to impact Alex Jone's reach.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#240

Post by gosub100 »

bassrattle wrote: post #201
oo0shiny wrote: post #171

For anyone curious about the events that led to this decision, I made a timeline that shows how it happened: https://alexjoneslies.com/

So as he is quoted at the top "Something I talked about like 15 times, six, seven, eight years ago." This appears to be true when he said it, judging from the rest of the site's content. He offered consistent reasons for his (wrong) opinion. And when he said, "I mean, how do I get a fair trial with stuff like this?", pretty valid given the article he's referencing. Sorry, but I don't see defamation here. And the un-d…

If he doesn't like the reality of the tort system he can just invent a new reality and say everything he dislikes is fake.
Post reply on HN