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

271–280 of 297 posts

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#271

Post by tootie »

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #208
bassrattle wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He knowingly made up lies about the Sandy Hook parents for personal gain, and continued to do so on a regular basis for over a decade. The case didn’t even make it to trial because he refused to turn over documents, likely because they would prove guilt. Free speech protects your right to say your opinion, but it does not protect you from willingly causing harm to others for personal gain.

Jones is currently crashing out over the deal with The Onion and has just today repeated his claim that the shooting was staged: https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3mk6rah...

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#273

Post by sophacles »

declan_roberts wrote: post #153
sophacles wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

I don't understand. Nothing stopping him from lying publicly about anybody or anything. It's not like he loses his 1st amendment card or something. The only lesson he's learned is to hire a better legal team in the future for civil (not criminal) suits.

You're right. I should have said discouraging him rather than making sure.

However the notion that Jones has learned something is so utterly preposterous that not even his fans are stupid enough to believe it

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#274

Post by JudgeMonroe »

ksymph wrote: post #265
quisquous wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like setting out to write "The King in Yellow"

I hadn't heard of this my entire life, but now three times in the past week I've seen it randomly pop up. Did I miss something, or is it just the frequency illusion at work? edit - interesting, Google trends shows it spiking over the past few months: https://trends.google.com/explore?q=%2Fm%2F0m_7t&date=all&ge... (also a huge spike in 2014, I wonder what that was about?)

The first season of True Detective on HBO would be responsible for the 2014 spike.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#275

Post by Rover222 »

jotajota24 wrote: post #217
Rover222 wrote: post #103

Not the direct point of this thread, but this being a nytimes link... I still can't believe the way those reporters giggled their way through the Hasan Piker interview the other day. That is guy is poison, but since he align with their views, it's all just rosy and silly to promote killing people on the other side of the political spectrum.

I'm sorry but which Hassan Piker views align with the NYTimes? Why are people so obsessed about this guy??

Yeah I don't get it.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#276

Post by jandrese »

pc86 wrote: post #174
jandrese wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No matter what you follow if FB thinks you are a man it's going to feed you those foreign near-porn shorts. Definitely not, FB knows I'm a man and I don't have anything remotely pornographic in my feed with any regularity because I don't interact with it when it does.

I've gotten the main feed under control, but the Reels have a mind of their own. It doesn't help that the reels don't have the "not interested" or even a thumbs down. The best you can do is a "hide reel" which seems to impart very little weight on the algorithm.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#277

Post by UltraSane »

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…

Alex Jones is an utterly depraved lunatic who will tell any lie as long as it makes him money and he doesn't care at all about the damage his lies cause. This directly led to him getting sued and losing because his lies causes enormous harm to the parents of the Sandy Hook victims.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#278

Post by defrost »

hagbard_c wrote: post #268
defrost wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a drive by reader that votes, I can guess why you copped a few whacks; The tone is off and it appears to carry the implication that you might believe that none of the above (Jones, Piker, Owens) should be landed with fines despite on the face of it saying the opposite. A cleaner comment would be better; just explain what it is that Piker has done that is equivilant to Jones' multi decade harrassment of the Sandi H…

It would have been far more interesting to read your reasoning instead of having you click that down-vote button. I don't agree with your reasoning but that is the point: we could discuss it, I could explain who Piker (a left-wing icon being pushed as a 'bro' by the party while he spouts utter tripe and nonsense, calling for murder of political opponents) and Owens (a right-wing podcaster who used to be part of the r…

> It would have been far more interesting to read your reasoning instead of having you click that down-vote button.

Ahhh, I read https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments feed and saw your "Can the down-voters for once let go of their pacifiers" which prompted me to look at context.

As a general rule I prefer to engage with things I disagree with rather than simply downvote or flag.

I note now (I'm GMT +8 and have been asleep since last here) that both your comments above are [flagged] and [dead].

The HN mods, dang and tomhow, really do like to push content, engagement, curious discussion, etc. over snark, partisan whiplash, cranky shit, etc.

Re: Piker .. the name came up again in some other context (some speculation about a recent interview in or with the NYT) and so I watched a recent (last 14 days IIRC) interview with him with someone from Mother Jones .. on the bases of that single exposure I personally wouldn't dot point summarise him as "spouting utter tripe and nonsense" - he is capable of debating his opinions, has a good grasp of the political landscape, and is clearly a devisive figure in the US political landscape that would get a lot of hot takes and slanting.

Again, I've only a 20 minute exposure, but he does have a good point that he has literally thousands of hours of live twitch streaming, discussion, and in the moment rambling through hypotheticals before landing on a position - ie. he's someone that anyone can build a rolltape of short clips of and easily misrepresent and take out of context.

Addendum: from your peer comment:

> just like Hasan Piker ('the Jews are behind all it all'),

uhh, my take from a 20 minute discussion is that he's strongly against Israel "the aparthied state", the zionist attitude, the current holders of power in Israel.

In that he's aligned with, say, the Jewish Council of Australia: https://www.jewishcouncil.com.au/

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#279

Post by lynx97 »

wutwutwat wrote: post #73
lynx97 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The list you just thought up trying to argue about literal jokes from a literal joke making company tells us more about you and your opinions regarding others than it says about the joke the joke making company made

Hear hear, what does it tell you about my "options about others"? Mind you, I am a member of one of the groups I mentioned. So, go on, make a joke about vulnerability, you seem to be the right person for this.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#280

Post by tsimionescu »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #250
jklinger410 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if you don't pay your civil liabilities? Civil vs criminal is a silly distinction when it comes to discussing right suppression. Jail time is not the only way to suppress a right.

You go to jail for failure to abide by a court order. Which is still distinct from going to jail for your speech. Alex Jones can continue to say whatever he wants, from a criminal perspective. He may be somewhat more aware of the potential costs of being a professional liar now, which might cause him to make different decisions as he analyzes the cost/benefit ratio for something he wants to say. The government won't…

This is not how freedom of speech works. The civil or criminal nature of any law limiting speech is irrelevant. What is relevant is if a law limiting speech is narrow enough and if it serves a purpose that is aligned with the constitution. Anti-defamation laws clearly do serve such a prupsoe (they limit only specific types of speech that is not of public interest, and they exist to protect the victim's constitutional rights where they conflict with the a user's free speech right), so they are compatible with the first amendment, and would have still been if they added criminal penalties and not just civil effects.

The government/congress/states can't make a law or regulation that says "you have a right to never hear anyone signing in the rain". Even if such a law somehow passes, when you bring a civil suit against someone singing in the rain because you claim they violated your right (enshrined in this law) to not hear such singing, you will lose your case, as the law you based it on infringes on the first amendment rights of the singer.

Note that things would be very different if, instead of a law, you had a HOA which enacted a rule saying "singing in the rain is not allowed on the premises; violators will be fined 1000$". Assuming any signage about this is clear enough and so on, you could be forced in court to pay such a fine to the HOA, and may even end up doing jail time if you refuse even after losing a lawsuit with the HOA. The first amendment is a limitation of the state's ability to create laws, it doesn't limit private entities from limiting speech, nor the government's ability to enforce property rights behind such an ability.

Post reply on HN