Wonderful news. I'm glad their CEO recognizes the great value of CEOs. My only worry is that this acquisition makes Global Tetraeder so large that it attracts the attention of those pesky EU bureaucrats, who will want to split it up into multiple imperfect solids.
They'd better think twice as long as Ted Kaczynski remains on The Onions editorial board[1], he also knows a few things about splitting things into multiple solids.
Now if we want to get into dirty details, no bureaucrat is ever elected. You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with. Or is this in the UK different?
> You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with.
This is not always the case, although I guess it depends how you define bureaucrats. As an example, in France, most of the administration is not nominated. You become a public worker through exam, and the representative usually have no power over your nomination, raises, etc.
It does make sense in a lot of cases. For example, in a city, only the mayor and its advisers are elected, and they do not have any control over the administration of the city. But the administration cannot refuse to work with a specific mayor. If they do, they would need to be moved elsewhere, or simply be fired for not doing their job.
On the other hand, they are also bound by the law, so they also act as a counter power to crazy mayor who wants to do illegal stuff. Meaning, if the mayor ask the administration to do something illegal, they can absolutely say no with no fear of repercussion for their job.
It also makes sense for other counter-power office, where having the currently elected representatives being able to choose who control the office would go against its whole purpose.
Meanwile, Macron chooses to ignore a left victory, then refuses to accept their prime minister and instead co-opts the election to instant the same center-right government that was broken up a few months prior. :+)
Now, to be fair that is partly the result of the left-wing coalition imploding (as usual… sigh) and being generally unwilling to compromise. It turns out that when you don’t have a majority, being the biggest party does not matter that much if you are unpleasant enough to make the other parties rally against you. Yes, I am bitter.
> 60 politicians of all colors stand for election in the 15 countries of the European Union: unimaginable benefits and positions of influence await their power brokers, for it is these Machiavellian lobbyists and self-appointed “leaders“ who hold the real power in the palms of their hands.
And from the rules:
> The player with the most total votes played in a given party is the party representative. If a player has two cards in the same party, their value is added. If two or more players have the same vote total in a party, the one with the highest single card is the party representative. Remember that a doubler card, if played, will always be considered the highest card. Also, note that it is possible for one player to control two parties.
> If Gaudino is played in a party in competition with another politician valued 7 in that party, he is considered to be the higher card.
> The green-leaf party is a special case. If two players tie for total value in green cards, it is possible that they will still tie for highest single card value. In that case, the two players are given thirty seconds to agree on who will be the green representative. If they do not agree in that time, each player with green cards may negotiate separately.
But.. they did not implode? They put forward a reasonable candidate that they all agreed on. Macron then refused that candidate and made clear he wouldn’t verify any PM that wasn’t center-right. He stole the election, plain and simple.
They did not “all agree on”. There was strong arming on one end because Méluche (and others, but he’s particularly hard to ignore and influential) cannot imagine compromising. Demanding submission was stupid because, again, having a couple of percents more than the others is not very useful if you don’t have a majority. And had they a majority, there would be nothing that Macron could do because they would just vote no confidence into any government coming before them. He is boisterous, vindictive, loud, and has been turning victories into defeats for more than a decade now. Macron is the opposite: not that showy, quieter, but ruthless and shrewd, and kept control despite setbacks. I don’t like neoliberals or conservatives (least of all that Barnier guy, I remember him from before he played as the EU’s saviour and he is not a nice person). But they were simply better at politics. They did not steal anything, they got a majority coalition, rickety as it is (and who knows how long it will last).
As long as we (and I mean the left side broadly) are talking about the government not being legitimate as we shoot ourselves in the foot, we won’t learn how to reverse this. Talking about stolen power is a weak argument when we’ve just been outmanoeuvred. And it makes us look like sulking children and in the end it just helps conservatives and fascists.
“If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, [those who work at public bureaus] have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us."
> You become a public worker through exam, and the representative usually have no power over your nomination, raises, etc.
Who else would have power over "nomination, raises etc" of anyone, if not elected representatives? Other public workers? At this point would they not be a sovereign group distinct from France, untouchable by the french people?
I guess the elected representatives have indirect power over everything in the end, if France is still a democracy. May be lots of layers of indirection, like the need to pass or change a law, but still.
Who defines and administers the exam you mentioned? Other public representatives? Can they decide to pass their relatives?
> Who else would have power over "nomination, raises etc" of anyone, if not elected representatives? Other public workers?
Yes, that's how the civil service works in most countries, more or less. The US is an outlier in that the executive appoints about 4,000 civil servants; most places don't work like that (even in the US; _most_ civil servants (about 2.8 million of them, federal) are hired, promoted, disciplined etc by other civil servants; the president doesn't sit in on every interview or anything.)
> I guess the elected representatives have indirect power over everything in the end, if France is still a democracy.
The elected representatives pass laws. The civil service implements them.
Separately, at least in many countries, not sure about France, you have the concept of power devolved to the minister, where the legislature passes a law allowing the minister to make orders in certain restricted areas, a bit like a scope-limited version of US presidential executive orders.
This occasionally has amusing repercussions if the original devolution legislation was insufficient or unconstitutional; for instance in Ireland nearly all drugs (morphine, heroin, cannabis and possibly cocaine remained illegal) were accidentally legalised for a day, when the supreme count found that the legislation used to enable the Minister for Justice to ban drugs was insufficient, thus legalising everything which had been banned since it was passed.
> The US is an outlier in that the executive appoints about 4,000 civil servants; most places don't work like that (even in the US; _most_ civil servants (about 2.8 million of them, federal) are hired, promoted, disciplined etc by other civil servants; the president doesn't sit in on every interview or anything.)
This is one of the concerning parts with the incoming administration.
> Project 2025, which is backed by the rightwing Heritage Foundation thinktank, has proposed to “dismantle the administrative state”, while Trump’s official “Agenda 47” calls for “cleaning out the Deep State” and “on Day One” issuing an “executive order restoring the president’s authority to fire rogue bureaucrats”.
> That executive order would set up a system, known as Schedule F, that would revamp the federal bureaucracy so that far more jobs could be filled with political appointees rather than through traditional merit rules. Trump’s supporters say Schedule F would cover about 50,000 federal employees, but unions representing federal workers say it would cover many times that. Currently, approximately 4,000 federal positions are subject to presidential appointment. Trump’s allies are said to have compiled a list of 20,000 loyalists who could quickly move into federal jobs in a new Trump administration.
---
That 4,000 is looking to become 20,000 and potentially increase up to 50,000 (and beyond depending how far reaching the reclassification is).
I suspect the coming administration would find a way to do the same thing even if it was in Germany or France. I suspect if the extreme right parties there ever win, they will find a way to achieve this too.
Best to be aware of this, not deceive ourselves that public servants are untouchable. Some people might get the idea that voting for a very bad politician would just send a message and not have much real effect, as the civil servants are the same and will do the same job and cannot be removed. They can. Even in Germany.
> I suspect the coming administration would find a way to do the same thing even if it was in Germany or France. I suspect if the extreme right parties there ever win, they will find a way to achieve this too.
Possibly. They’d need majority control of the legislature (not merely the sort of plurality control that seems within the bounds of possibility on some countries) and control of the courts. They’d also potentially need to be able to change the constitution; in most countries the Lisbon treaty is either implicitly or explicitly above local law. They’d need to be ready to face sanctions from the EU. I think Germany in particular also has some regulation of the civil service actually in the constitution. But ultimately, yeah, if the far right successfully took over the government (rather than just leading a coalition or something) they could probably do this; the Nazis did, after all.
Majority control of the legislature is what I'm talking about. In Germany and France that's how a party comes to power, not through presidential elections. There is no such thing in Germany, though in France it is naturally more complicated :) Even there, Macron still has power only because parties are somewhat tied. If there was a clear winner, he would have no choice but to give them control.
The courts? If you have majority in the legislature, you can pass any law you want, and the courts are obligated to follow the law. You think they would just rebel and disregard laws that they consider not-ok?
In any case. The courts need to get paid, and need offices and electricity and computers and support from police and other branches. And judges need to be appointed, and sometimes leave. One way or another the courts would get converted to the cause. All the courts in a country are a lot of people. There are always some who would betray. Just adjust the laws and the salaries and everything you can (which is a lot if you own the legislative) to advantage those on your side and disadvantage those who oppose you. Prosecutors are typically under the executive, so start some made-up investigations against the most prominent judges that oppose you. No need to do it for all, set a few examples and the others will see the error of their ways. No need for the investigations to get convictions in court. Just place doubt on inconvenient judges, and use the media to amplify it. Your side of the media, while the other side also gets converted. Converting the media is much easier, again, using executive and legislative power.
The constitution as a document is irrelevant. The court(s) that interpret it would just get converted to the cause in the same way. This has already been done in Poland and the US, and I presume in Hungary, since there's no news about them creating trouble.
> in most countries the Lisbon treaty is either implicitly or explicitly above local law
The government and the converted courts will just start acting as if the Lisbon treaty does not exist. Who or what can enforce it? Look at Hungary. Look at Poland before the recent change. Look at Slovakia. A treaty has no power over a country that does not whish to follow it. Look at the Budapest memorandum and soon enough we will see Trump ignore the NATO treaty.
In my country the constitutional court routinely says our constitution (and therefore their decisions, which always favor a certain party, and corruption in general) are above the Lisbon treaty. The EU pretends nothing happened (presumably due to the war).
The concerning thing is, if he's actually just there to bust the joint out and crash everything, it's a moot point whether it's 4000 or 20000 people, whether they're competent or useless, or anything.
In some circumstances, the plan would be to fire everybody and then just sit there and do nothing (except fire more people). The idea that all this is towards any kind of functional system, is an assumption. They could be looking to dismantle the entire administrative state and just collapse immediately to feudalism.
> Who else would have power over "nomination, raises etc" of anyone, if not elected representatives?
In many countries that is done based on laws describing career progression process.
In Germany most administration workers are "career" folks, who study at the university of administration and then have a career paths, where levels at are relatively clearly described. Only heads of different authorities are "political" positions, which are nominated by ministers and can be fired/retired relatively easily but even those in most cases stay across administrations. Only ministers and their direct staff change.
In some ministries there sometimes is the saying "we don't care who is minoster below us" but if a some minister with an agenda is appointed they still can be very effective.
But since the law is written by elected representatives, to say that the representatives have no power in this case seems wrong, to me. That's all.
If the voters will vote for the "fire Joe" party 20 years in a row, I guarantee Joe the civil servant will eventually be fired, even in Germany, France, anywhere. Well, maybe not in China, but that's different. Anywhere where votes still matter. Solutions would be found, laws changed, exceptions provided, and so on.
But now we’re in reducto ad absurdum territory because elected officials can pass laws to force private companies to fire specific employees, too. And before you say “constitution,” that can also be amended.
I have no clue what your point is. Reductio ad absurdum is a useful argument, not a logical fallacy.
> And before you say “constitution,”
I have zero idea why I would say "constitution" or anything really. My entire point is that nobody is beyond the reach of elected representatives, and that is by design and a good thing too.
> My entire point is that nobody is beyond the reach of elected representatives
That’s just stating the obvious.
> that is by design
No, it’s not. It’s just a fact of life that governments can control every aspect of a person’s life if it chooses. It’s always been this way and always will be.
This is why your statements are absurd.
When people refer to a civil service as being “apolitical” or “not politically appointed,” it’s obvious that they’re not referring to absurd cases like “a government can outlaw them from having a job.”
That’s why I said you’re reducing the argument to absurdity.
Civil servants are a-political so why would you need to fire them? A civil servant carries out whatever law is enacted by the government.
The bureaucracy is a tool and tools don't have a will.
> The bureaucracy is a tool and tools don't have a will.
As if it's not made of humans. This view is in grave error. Nobody is perfectly rational, nobody is beyond bias or subjectivty, nobody is beyond human emotions.
One reason is scapegoating. If a politician fucks up they can shift the blame to civil servants. Another reason is conflicts. Politician proposes a law and the head of the affected department says that the law will lead to major loss of tax revenue.
I don’t think this is strictly true. There are documented cases where, for better or worse, apolitical civil servants undermined politicians. Rory Stewart’s book has some great examples.
This ignores the self-interest of civil servants, which they most definitely have and is the basis for public choice theory.
Building upon economic theory, public choice has a few core tenets. One is that no decision is made by an aggregate whole. Rather, decisions are made by combined individual choices. A second is the use of markets in the political system. A third is the self-interested nature of everyone in a political system.
There are two factors: One is that the Constitution disallows laws for a special case. Thus a "fire joe law" may not exist (without Change to constitution)
However: Yes, who you vote for impacts government. If you vote for a party which sets priority in building bike sheds, the authorities will move staff to the required departments, while Joe remains in the department nobody cares about anymore and thus can't meet the promotion goals. (While he will still receive the regular raise for the job level he is in) And if one truly wants to get rid of Joe there certainly is a way to find a reason for demoting him ..
But it's way different from the American system which sweeps thousand of jobs, according to [1] about 4,000 jobs directly, where then many of those bring in their assistant, advisor etc.
Yeah, I get it's different. Not saying it's the same. Just don't give me the absolute "civil servants are untouchable by politicians". It would be bad if they really were untouchable.
I never stated that. But there is a notable cultural difference between Europe and US.
This goes also further: Many offices which are elected in the US are appointed in Europe (I'm not aware of a European country where population elects state/district attorneys, sheriffs, judges, school boards, etc)
You are not wrong. Exam, raises, lateral and vertical move are decided (in most case) by:
1. The law. For example, public worker salary's are explicitly defined on a public grid, which depends on several factor (exact position, how long you have been in the job, the national public worker salary index, ...).
2. Their boss / future boss. Promotion it partly a matter of law, but also partly at the discretion of your boss. Same for a lateral move. If a position open, and you are qualified to fill it, you have to have interview just like a normal job offer.
There is a bunch a caveat and details, but that's the gist of it. So, technically, representative do have power over this. Some representatives can change the law, and some are technically more or less the boss of the top officer at some administration.
But it still make a lot of things difficult if not impossible. A mayor cannot change national law, only Deputé of the national assembly can, so he has no power over the salary of his administration. He also has no power to fire someone from the local administration unless he can prove that they did something that the law consider a fireable offense. The same would go for a minister.
Of course, in effect, they do yield a lot of influence. While public worker are very, very rarely fired, they can be moved to another position, which is easier to do and what usually happen when someone powerful want them gone without having the actual power to do so directly.
> I guess the elected representatives have indirect power over everything in the end, if France is still a democracy. May be lots of layers of indirection, like the need to pass or change a law, but still.
Yes, in the end of course. But these layers of indirection are extremely important. In my country right-wing politicians are currently rallying against prosecutors they think are "too lenient" with criminals. If it weren't for the indirection those prosecutors would have been replaced with the politicians' yes-friends long ago.
> For example, in a city, only the mayor and its advisers are elected, and they do not have any control over the administration of the city. But the administration cannot refuse to work with a specific mayor.
The mayor can still dictate policy and the administration have to implement it if it is not illegal, right?
You almost managed to show or administration as a competent, hard working group that has the interests of the population in mind.
The above is of course satire. We have idiotic regulations that require a good understanding of culture to get through. People are like the rest of the population: average. There are good ones send bad ones.
For the exam - it completely depends on the administration and your level.
We hate our administration because it is either complicated, or contacting them is a nightmare (or simply impossible)
Yes, but that is not the point. The point is it was a favorite attack point used by Brexit supporters. A whole lot of the accusations against the EU applied just as much - sometimes much more - to the UK itself.
We have people who frothed at the mouth over the role played by unelected bureaucrats now frothing at the mouth at proposals to remove the last hereditary Lords from our legislature...
(in fairness, those people tend to hate the Civil Service in the UK too. And they're elected hereditary Lords, albeit via a franchise consisting entirely of other hereditary Lords)
> We have people who frothed at the mouth over the role played by unelected bureaucrats now frothing at the mouth at proposals to remove the last hereditary Lords from our legislature...
I do not think they are the same people. The majority of votes were to leave the EU, the majority of people want to get rid of hereditary peerages.
> And they're elected hereditary Lords, albeit via a franchise consisting entirely of other hereditary Lords
The appointment is formally made by the monarch, in practice by the Prime Minister, with some recommendations coming from a commission that is not part of the house of lords.
You obviously haven't read the Telegraph or listened to many Conservative MPs recently. I don't blame you tbf!
> The appointment is formally made by the monarch, in practice by the Prime Minister, with some recommendations coming from a commission that is not part of the house of lords.
Those are life peers. Hereditary peers are, as the name suggests, people who get their access to the House of Lords by accident of birth rather than Prime Minister. But since Blair cut a deal to get rid of all but 92 of them, they have elected the 92, from a franchise consisting exclusively of people who had hereditary titles that had previously entitled them to a seat.
How few people need to vote to appoint someone before they're considered "unelected'"? The 805 Lords? The 538 of the US electoral college? The 121 Cardinals of the Conclave? The 101 of the American Senate? The 27 EU Commissioners?
An indirect democracy is you voting for a representative who votes for policies.
The EU is a doubly-indirect democracy: you vote for local politicians who appoint commissioners who vote for policies. Each layer of indirection adds a new way for popular policies to be subverted. Hell, even in the US, the single layer of indirection is already sufficient to kill things like right to repair.
> The EU is a doubly-indirect democracy: you vote for local politicians who appoint commissioners who vote for policies.
The EU Commission is the executive, not legislative branch. Though it does hold the initiative to create proposals, they have to be approved by the Council, which is where the real power lies. The Council consists of members of national governments.
Also there is a directly elected, but much less powerful, European Parliament, that has to approve the legislative too.
Indeed. That pattern was obvious even before the referendum. The UK is know for its strong civil servant body that can keep the ship afloat when the old chaps in the government have no clue which way is up. And its first past the post system. It is admirable on a lot of levels but certainly not any more democratic than the EU.
A bit; mostly as you say, but also it's a kingdom and has the House of Lords whose seats are partially heritable, partially religious appointments from the state religion with the monarch at the top, in addition to those appointed by the elected government.
> partially religious appointments from the state religion
There are also, in practice, a number of other religious appointments made to provide other religious groups with representation.
> in addition to those appointed by the elected government.
Those are the most problematic IMO. Businesspeople (because the rich do not have enough influence on politics and cannot get their voice heard?), and former politicians.
I think how it works is nicely summarised by the fact that at least one of the founders of an ecommerce website (lastminute.com) is a peer but no-one like (for example) Tim Berners-Lee is.
Alexandra Freeman [0] or Lionel Tarassenko [1] might fit your criteria as technocratic appointments to the peerage - just how "like" TBL do they have to be? Sir Timothy seems like the kind of character who could reasonably be appointed, too, if that's what he really wanted.
I agree with your point that it's dominated by businessmen and aristocrats, but maybe not quite as badly as you think.
Freeman, has spent most of her career as a science in science communication (director and producer of BBC documentaries, then a "communications" role at Cambridge).
I like TBL as an example partly because of his interest in the broader consequences of technology, and the contrast with people who have made money from the technology her inventented being peers.
In the UK (and other places like NZ/AU), public servants are permanent. They're not elected in any way.
So they are employees of their departments and don't change when a minister changes. Ministers are almost always a member of Parliament and appointed by the Prime Minister, so they can change at any time.
Usually a government will have some changes at the top of departments (the "Permanent Secretary") and high level executives, but that's also a "change of government to another party" event.
In the US we colloquially call that "career staff". The people at the top are usually political employees, but rank and file will typically stay from one administration to the next.
A big part of the "project 2025" idea was to reduce career employees and make everybody effectively a political appointee.
If you can, watch the (very) old TV series called "Yes Minister" from UK television (it's from the 70s/80s).
Sir Humphrey Appelby often explains to the Minister Jim Hacker how the Minister sets "policy" and it is the "humble public servants" that carry out that policy, having attended to the details that are required when dealing with the heavy business of government across departments, while leaving the Minister to concentrate on the "big picture", and doing his job, which is:
1. Defend the Ministry in Parliament
2. Make sure that the Ministry's budget is defended in Cabinet
The EU is governed by the European Commission, which is not elected. Say what you will about reactionary British conservatives, the fact remains that the EU is not a particularly democratic organisation.
The Bundesrat in Switzerland is also not elected directly by the people, it's elected by Congress. The Bundeskanzler in Germany are not also not elected directly by the people, they are elected by Congress.
It only shows that you have no clue how EU and it's institutions works, how they are chosen (and elected) and why it was done this way :D yes, it's a huge compromise to satisfy both direct democracy via PE and member state governments. What's more, the actual composition of the government in most of the countries is not elected either (you as a populace don't vote who would be your prime minister, nor it's cabinet... or who will new president nominate)
How is that true, if the body that nominates the European Commission _is_ elected??
By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected.
(If you go for the direct election argument, the UK fares pretty badly BTW.)
> By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected.
It's a matter of degree rather than a binary. Representative democracy is a little less democratic than direct democracy. Elections every 20 years are a bit less democratic than elections every 5 years. Having the elected representatives appoint a head of state is a bit less democratic than electing one directly. The more layers of indirection you add, the more it becomes a bureaucratic oligarchy.
I agree. But my point is: Neither are UK or the US really clean democracies. In the US there is an entire system of courts that operate in a completely opaque way (eg FISA court). See my other post below for further examples.
It seems here that because the EU likes to regulate more, people somehow perceive it as less democratic.
It's not so much that the EU regulates more as that it has very little accountability to the public. I think people perceive it as less democratic because it is less democratic. (Which in no way excuses the FISA court etc.).
The body that nominates the Commission isn't elected.
In theory the Commission is mostly made up of civil servants who answer to commissioners, who are themselves nominated by each country's own government or civil service. Each commissioner has one area of responsibility only, and they answer to the head of the Commission who is their boss. So someone in the UK votes for a politician, who votes for a party leader, who appoints some ministers, and those ministers may or may not have much of a say in whoever gets nominated to be a commissioner - one of many. But there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect and the person your vote ends up influencing doesn't do anything important to your country or needs.
In practice it doesn't actually work that way. In practice, the head of the Commission has veto power over the nominations. They aren't supposed to according to the treaties but the treaties are ignored. This means that in reality it's the head of the Commission who picks the Commissioners, because they can just reject anyone who isn't sufficiently aligned with their own agenda.
So that leaves the question of how the head of the Commission is picked. Once again there is theory and practice. In theory, it's a decision of the heads of each state that they take together to select some candidates, and the Parliament then gets to vote for their preferred candidate. In practice ... nobody knows how the head is picked. Ursula von der Leyen was recently re-appointed despite being plagued by scandals and having a long career of failing upwards. Parliament was sidelined by giving them a voting list with only one candidate on it (her). Seek out an explanation of how she got this job and you won't find one because:
1. The heads of state don't talk about how they decide as a group. Is it a vote? Some sort of horse trading? Do they take it in turns? Are they even all able to take part? Nobody knows.
2. There's no record of which country voted for who, or why.
3. The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear.
4. Because no head of state has any control over who gets onto the candidate list, they never talk on the campaign trail about how they will "vote" (assuming that's how it works) for who runs the EU.
In other words, the process is entirely secret. The potential for corruption is unlimited.
So when critics say the EU Commission is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, they are right and those who argue otherwise here on HN are wrong. People who got their jobs via a process so opaque and indirect that how it functions can't be explained, not even in principle, cannot claim to be democratically selected.
She was elected with a majority - albeit not a huge one. Still: elected.
This is an example of "there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect".
How about another counterexample: In the US the members of the Federal Reserve are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (so an indirect path, but fairly short), for 14 years! The Supreme Justices are appointed for life.
To take this to a hypothetical extreme, image now calling a country "democratic" where you just hold elections once per lifetime.
That doesn't really strike me as democratic, as the "demos", the people, change their minds more often than once in 14 years, or once per lifetime.
Of course, the EU I'm sure also has appointments that go beyond the standard 4-5-ish years. But my point is: the EU isn't as undemocratic as you make it to be and the US/UK isn't as democratic as you may think. Both are muddling along, and probably neither reach Swiss levels.
> The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear
Your points 1.-4. apply to many appointments in the US and UK that are similarly undemocratic: To take an example from the UK: The Governor of the Bank of England is appointed by the Chancellor+PM. Again, no one knows who or why they made the decision the way they made it. Were they friends with the future Governor? Did their party engage in some horse trading with the opposition to secure other benefits in turn for nominating a particular person? No one knows.
The governor of the Bank of England is indeed not democratically elected, and people do criticize that fact. I'm one of them!
But people certainly do know how that position is selected, by whom and for what reason. The current governor of the BoE has a long history of running government financial institutions, including in the central bank itself. He is a civil servant and is thus picked by the Chancellor, who is himself picked by the Prime Minister. No mysteries there. He is eminently qualified for the role.
On 3 June 2019, it was reported in The Times that Bailey was the favourite to replace Mark Carney as the new governor of the Bank of England.[9] Sajid Javid had also intervened in support of Bailey.[10][11] According to The Economist: "He is widely seen within the bank as a safe pair of hands, an experienced technocrat who knows how to manage an organisation."[12]
Previously he served as the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England under Mervyn King from January 2004 until April 2011, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for Prudential Regulation under Mark Carney from April 2013 to July 2016 and Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority from 2016 to 2020.
You can also even just observe the following litmus test of democratic legitimacy: what percentage of people have even heard of Ursula von der Leyen (or most of her predecessors) before her appointment to the most powerful position in the EU? Contrast that with their country's president or prime minister and you will see why one is democratically legitimate and the other is not.
The current prime minister of the uk was not elected for the position, they were given it by virtue of leading the party that won the most seats, the leadership of which was not voted for by the general public.
The monarch does not propose or pass legislation, only nominally approves it (and it would cause a huge constitutional crisis if the monarch ever failed to do so).
It has a parliament, a flag (adopted - its the flag of Europe originated by the Council of Europe), a national anthem (likewise adopting a well known piece of music) and a de facto constitution (it was essentially PR move to drop plans to call it a constitution - the substance did not change).
Interestingly enough, none of those things are required for a country. That said, a 1-member local branch of the disney fan club might have all 3, and we wouldn't consider it to be a country.
Having a majority of countries recognize you as a country is pretty much all that's required, if that.
I do wonder whether some people have thought out the end-game, in the event that they plan to simply fire all those people, turn them out onto the street, and replace them with nothing.
I mean, one outcome is the obvious collapse of the Pentagon. But it seems like an oversight to have those people, now with a bone to pick, running around loose. Do they propose to take all the bad Pentagon bureaucrats and confine them in some way? I wouldn't want to be the Sgt. Shultz in charge of being those guys' jailer. Seems like it would be a tall, tall order.
The actual CEO, Ben Collins, has been running The Onion for a short while and his background was as a reporter for NBC. He covered a lot of internet topics very, very well (IMO).
Ben Collins' personal Twitter presence did real damage to the credibility of modern political journalists, imho.
His tweets were soaked in that glib faux-distinterested mid-2010s hyper-online style (but he would still tweet four times an hour, carefully calculating the most likely-to-trend level of ironic detachment for his 'epic' dunk on whoever Twitter's victim of the day was). He had a memorable feud with Nate Silver, in which he (Collins) demonstrated utter ignorance of elementary math, to farm likes off of the then-'out' Silver. Collins treated Twitter like he was the starring character in a high school melodrama.
For almost any 'bad Twitter take' cliché you can think of, there's a Ben Collins tweet (which, to be fair, is still much less bad than the worst of the new Twitter).
> His tweets were soaked in that glib faux-distinterested mid-2010s hyper-online style
I think this is generational rather than decade-al. That's just how Gen X/early millenials talk about everything, and it's why Bluesky is still like that.
The other big example is that awful Cory Doctorow babytalk word "enshittification" - they love dropping in the occasional swear but only to make things sound even more smarmy.
> My only worry is that this acquisition makes Global Tetraeder so large that it attracts the attention of those pesky EU bureaucrats, who will want to split it up into multiple imperfect solids.
Based on what previous in-real-life examples is this a realistic worry? AFAIK, "EU bureaucrats" haven't broken up a single US-based company before so seems like a weird thing to be worried about.
Are you really criticizing The Onion's fact-checking?
Can you spot any problems with their plan for the supplement inventory?
> we plan to collect the entire stock of the InfoWars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents down into a single candy bar–sized omnivitamin that one executive (I will not name names) may eat in order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal
>Can you spot any problems with their plan for the supplement inventory?
as a regular reader of infowars and a happy customer of their supplements, i cannot see any flaw in that logic and can only hope that i, a successful business executive, will be the person they choose to give immortality to.
I was a worker on that project. A crumb of the omnivitamin fell off and touched my right hand and now that hand doesn't age anymore like Bruce Willis's hands in Death Becomes Her
"Much like family members, our brands are abstract nodes of wealth, interchangeable assets for their patriarch to absorb and discard according to the opaque whims of the market. And just like family members, our brands regard one another with mutual suspicion and malice."
On a whim, I decided to peek at the InfoWars homepage. At this moment, I cannot determine which of the headlines are genuine InfoWars content and which are the product of Onion writers. (I assume it's genuine due to the recency of the sale closing?)
InfoWars audience is loyal only to Jones himself and will never visit InfoWars again. Jones will go elsewhere, 100% of his audience will follow, and the Onion is in for a big letdown. If you are dreaming about reprogramming Jone's followers by taking over InfoWars, it just shows that you know nothing about the typical InfoWars consumer.
This my view, in fact the whole thing completely puzzles me, Jones is free to publish his vile views elsewhere and his followers will find him. Infowars "onion-style" would have to be pretty dammed subtle to "trick" Jonesites into consuming it sincerely.
How the parents of the Sandy Hook victims use their compensation is their business but I feel supporting advocacy for better mental health facilities in the USA would be a better use of the money.
I will never cease to by amused by the idea that Jones' fans value the InfoWars brand and website above Jones himself. He is a celebrity among his fans. Exactly 0 of them will pay any attention to InfoWars the minute Jones is no longer associated with the brand.
I don’t think they expected anything different. I think they saw the brand for sale at firesale prices, and decided they could use it. In fact, they’re one of the only ’mainstream’ outlets that can use the InfoWars brand, since it’s funny. Perhaps they will set up a ‘competing’ ‘right-wing’ satire site ala Colbert Report vs Daily Show.
The difficulty with this is that anything that isn’t a hard 180 involves continuing to publish approximately the same type of content for a while, which is probably unpalatable to The Onion. Anything that is a small enough course correction to retain its audience is too small a shift to get away from that hateful nonsense. It’s a nice idea to try to steer people away, but you have to start off by driving in the same direction, which nobody wants to do.
> The trick is to lie to them to get them away from their hateful and conspiracy theories
I can't articulate what you're admitting to exactly, but it's an interesting admission.
On a more serious note, most of the readers of these kinds of outlets aren't stupid in this specific sense. They go looking for confirmation, rather than new information. This is why they're hard to untangle.
> They go looking for confirmation, rather than new information. This is why they're hard to untangle.
This applies to most readers of most things, not just fringe content on the Left or the Right.
Most people are stuck in their confirmation biases, and few make an intellectual effort to look at topics from multiple angles and via multiple media outlets on various sides of the political spectrum.
whoops, looks like you let the mask slip! I see you started this thread debating the merits of trust in the court system, I'm relieved we've finally got to the crux of it. You consume and identify with the kind of crank material Infowars publishes. Thank you for letting us know.
> Alex Jones was declared to be in default for failing to provide a document that never existed in the first place.
You've said this numerous times. It isn't true.
> In her ruling, Bellis criticized Jones’ attorney for providing only “sanitized, inaccurate” financial records and showed “callous disregard” for her repeated rulings to provide complete analytics data. She found Jones’ attorneys actions “were not just careful” but constituted “a pattern of obstructive conduct” requiring the most severe sanction of default, what she called a “last resort,” as reported by the Hartford Courant.
It was for a pattern of behavior, not any single document. Speaking of patterns of behavior, you've now left three increasingly unhinged replies to my single comment. Whatever impression it is you're trying to create, I don't think it's working.
>>Lol... someone apparently accepted the mRNA injections.
It just boggles my mind that one of the greatest medical achievements of this century(so far anyway) is being ridiculed on the internet. It's honestly the same as someone going in the comments section and saying that the earth is flat, after all just LOOK OUTSIDE SHEEPLE.
Someone sets a tree on fire. The fire brigade comes and puts it out with a couple of buckets of water. Wow, isn't water great?
The arsonists come back and douse the tree in petrol and set it on fire again. Now the water is less effective. Do you now think the water didn't help with the first fire?
>>This "greatest medical achievement" was touted by the "mainstream" media as 100% safe and effective.
It can still be the greatest medical achievement of our century and the media could have been lying about how safe it is. Penicillin was the greatest medical achievement of its time yet it isn't 100% safe to use. Nothing really is.
What is stupid is people dismissing mRNA vaccines wholesale because they read how some articles written at the time of the pandemic weren't entirely true.
>>this is why it is ridiculed, because it is and always was total bullshit.
Just so we're clear, what do you mean as "total bullshit"?
>>Why did they later tout it as 90% effective? Then 80% effective, then 70% effective, then 60% effective
">>and that they had an intended purpose different than what CNN/MSNBS etc would say they were for
So what were they for? Admittedly I don't know what CNN said as I'm not american.
>>which you will find has been 100% admitted by the "legitimate" voices if you bother to look
Again, no offence, but this just sounds like my mum saying "I know this one doctor who works out of this hut in the woods, he really knows the truth about everything, everyone is lying". Just smells wrong if you know what I mean. The fact that you keep putting "legitimate" in quotes suggests they are anything but.
>>In case you missed it, the "authoritative" voices have admitted that the mRNA injections did not prevent infection and did not prevent spread.
But you know what, I'll freely admit that I might have completely missed such an admission from a major authority - care to enlighten me please?
Also, I want to add one more thing - specifically Covid vaccines are one thing, we can keep debating them, but you seemed to make fun out of all mRNA vaccines, which to me is the crazy part. mRNA as a technology absolutely works and again, is a miracle of science(or you know....just science).
"The mRNA injections" referred to the ones marketed for covid specifically.
I did not, and would not, dismiss the use of mRNA gene therapies (that's what it is), categorically.
> this just sounds like my mum saying "I know this one doctor
By "legitimate" / "authoritative" voices, I am referring to "mainstream" media. I put "mainstream" in quotes because long-form podcasts and even Alex Jones himself have a larger audience than CNN/MSNBS etc.
> I'll freely admit that I might have completely missed such an admission from a major authority - care to enlighten me please?
I respect this sincere pursuit of truth, very much so. I will leave this thread open in a tab and bring resources I am aware of to you in the near future.
> They are vaccines. > Okay they aren't vaccines they are mRNA, but we changed the definition of vaccine.
There's many different types of vaccines, you can invent new ones without changing the definition.
> They prevent you from contracting and spreading the virus. > Okay they don't prevent you from contracting the virus but they prevent you from spreading. > Okay they don't prevent you from spreading but they reduce symptoms.
They work on a specific strain of the virus, they're not effective against other strains. The whole point about quarantining, social distancing, masks, etc, is to lower the spread of a strain before it has a chance to mutate into a new one so a vaccine that targets it can be administrated to enough of the population so it can actually be effective in stopping its spread.
Did you happen to have a brain worm by any chance?
It's not gene therapy. Gene therapy changes DNA. The vaccine causes some proteins to be produced temporarily and then it goes away.
And those proteins make the immune system react to build immunity to them. The second half of that sentence is the definition of a vaccine. What do you think a vaccine is?
And nothing is ever literally 100% safe, but people exaggerate. It's ridiculous to reject something because it got exaggerated about at some point.
"COVID-19 vaccination of the index case reduced infectiousness by 44% (95% CI, 27-57%), vaccination of the close contact reduced susceptibility by 69% (95% CI, 65-73%), and vaccination of both reduced transmissibility by 74% (95% CI, 70-78%) in social settings, suggesting some synergy of effects."
"Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination reduces infectiousness and susceptibility; however, these effects are insufficient for complete control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially in older people and household setting."
Overall, I think the dominant phenomenon here is people wanted to typecast floating-point data to boolean answers, the media did their best to accomodate that want, and almost nobody reads primary sources.
You'd have to ask the Pfizer / BioNTech press staff, since they were the source.
Later down in this article, they clarify with some hard numbers: "Researchers observed 18 Covid-19 cases among the 1,129 participants who were given a placebo, and none among the 1,131 volunteers who got the vaccine. The data has yet to be peer reviewed."
So Pfizer/BioNTech is reporting 100% efficacy on a non-peer-reviewed study where 1.5% of the control group contracted the disease (news article doesn't say how "contraction of disease" was identified, whether that was antibody presence or symptoms).
News has a bad habit of reducing complex circumstances to headlines that appear yes-or-no.
It would be good to point out William Makis is a disgraced, long unlicensed (pre pandemic) physician and anti-vax grifter, a quack.
Quite telling he still claims affiliation with an institution he was terminated from nearly a decade ago.
He worked at a cancer center as a radiologist but continues to misrepresent his expertise as an oncologist. Real piece of work.
Glancing at this article you have posted, I am genuinely intrigued and look forward to reading it today or tomorrow.
The thing about the IgG4 topic overall, is it's not just a small handful of papers that are discussing it, along with other immune issues that have resulted from the mRNA shots.
> It would be good to point out William Makis is a disgraced
Can you give us a solid citation on exactly how? I would like to see this.
> He worked at a cancer center as a radiologist but continues to misrepresent his expertise as an oncologist.
This means he had a front row seat to how cancer develops in patients, how cancer is successfully neutralized (or not) in patients, and also the internal politics and realpolitik imperatives of such a place. Given that cancer is a multi-hundred billion dollar industry, and a patient cured or prevented from having the disease in the first place is not profitable, unironically his work history could provide insight into how institutions that employ fleets of oncologists actually operate.
they are shutting us down even without a court order this morning
He seems surprised. I guess losing a multi-year court case, being fined $1,500,000,000.00 by a jury, and going through bankruptcy court wasn't enough of a warning?
Part of the MO of these outrage merchants is that they simultaneously claim that the government perpetrate the most vile acts (killing children, poisoning the water, false flag attacks) while also acting outraged and surprised that they'd do something as mundane as ignore a procedure.
Since Musk's acquisition of Twitter, it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories. And Alex Jones' InfoWars and Elon Musk's Twitter are both likely to show you advertisements for supplements of dubious effectiveness and other generally scammy products.
So on the one hand you had Twitter, where the impression you would have had in the first few days of November is that Trump was probably going to win the election.
On the other hand you had most other platforms like Reddit, with relatively heavy-handed moderation, where the impression you would have had in the first few days of November is that Trump was probably going to lose the election.
So when you want to make a prior judgement on an extremely consequential outcome, which a posteriori was not even close, and one information ecosystem gives you the right answer, and most of the other information ecosystems give you the wrong answer, which information ecosystems do you classify as "echo chambers"?
It's possible that this was just a fluke, but it should certainly make you update your priors on which ecosystems provide a more representative sample of base reality.
If I confidently declare ahead of time the result of a coin flip, I may turn out to be correct, but my confidence was still unjustified. And furthermore, my getting it right would not necessitate a “fluke”.
I’m on Reddit a fair bit and while it’s difficult to know the overall biases of the greater community based on what I see individually, I don’t have a lot of trouble believing that there was a bias toward a particular desired result. But, I honestly didn’t see much in the way of a bias one way or the other in the expected result. I mostly saw a lot of anxiety over not knowing what result to expect.
I disagree. The media makes it seem like a coin flip, but the prediction markets where people are focused on making money was accurate.
This is compared to the media who are more interested in pushing lies and ideology.
Personally, I don’t care what the “media” was saying. I care what the polling data and the election models based on the polling data were saying. They were saying pretty consistently that this could go either way, but that at the same time the result may not turn out to be actually that close. Those two aren’t incompatible.
If any other profession was as consistently wrong as pollsters are, would they be taken seriously?
I think the main job of pollsters is to provide content for corporate media (the closer the polls the better for attracting eyeballs for advertisers).
And they do this job admirably. It just has nothing to do with the election.
You don’t value polling, ok. No use continuing to go back and forth about it. Instead, maybe you’ll feel like responding to one of the other commenters that replied to you about prediction markets…
Polls are twisted to return falsehoods from gray information. It’s hard to fathom that you don’t notice neither the methods nor the results. It’s a bit like living in Beijin and saying that Tiannenmen is conspirationist storytelling, or a coin flip on whether it happened or not. It did. 100% chance.
“It’s 50% probability. Either it’s true or it isn’t.” — what meddlers pretend when they’re not happy admitting the high probability of their enemy candidate being elected. It wasn’t a coin flip.
Assuming that random factors like "it rained" or "voters got in car accidents and couldn't make it to the polls" aren't a significant factor, there's always a 100% probability of one specific candidate winning since everyone has made up their minds before the day of the election. What polls do is not telling you the real-world probability, it's telling you the likelihood of a given outcome given known data.
Polls always need to be skewed in some way to be accurate, since not everybody will vote. You can't just get a random distribution of the population's preference and assume the more-preferred candidate will win. Polls can never be truly accurate because people will lie about which candidate they're voting for and whether they're planning to vote, and sometimes people who genuinely intended to vote never make it to the polls. There are a huge number of variables to consider when trying to predict the outcome of the election, but it's important enough that it's still worth trying.
The polling was pretty darn close though, overall. Same as in 2016. The thing is, there's enough polls out there that people can pick the outliers and decide themselves into a narrative that makes them feel good.
It's an incredibly small number of voters in the key swing states that actually decide the election. It's under 1% of the voters to swing the election. Winner take all + electoral college will give you that.
Not true. PredictIt was predicting Trump for 3 weeks prior up until 27th where it took a dive. This is likely due to over-reacting to the Puerto Rican island garbage joke at MSG on the 27th. Not saying prediction markets will be perfectly accurate but they will certainly be better than pollsters.
I didn’t say it always predicted Harris the winner. I said that it was predicting her to win just before the election. She was also leading during the entire period between August 17-October 10, and likely somewhat earlier (I can only see the 90-day history on my phone).
The point here is that there is no “the prediction markets” one can speak of as a cohesive unit.
> I’m on Reddit a fair bit and while it’s difficult to know the overall biases of the greater community based on what any one person sees
Left. Censored media leans left. Censored forums, news, communities are censored to give credit to left ideas. Symmetrically, left ideas only thrive by hiding information.
Moderated media leans left. At least some of the reason it ends up that way is that many of the people who violate incredibly reasonable rules are conservative. Certain groups of hard-right people will say some incredibly bigoted shit that's absolutely out of line and makes it impossible to have a civilized conversation, then they complain about getting banned and drag a bunch of moderately-more-reasonable people with them when they leave. Once those people leave, normal everyday non-asshole conservatives realize the platform has less conservative content and leave in search of spaces that they feel respect their viewpoints more. In some cases entire topic-groups get banned (/r/the_donald is a good example) for legitimate reasons that frequently involve a small extremely-active group of members, and the rest of the members will also leave the platform because all they see is that a group they were part of got banned.
People who lean to the left tend to believe that it's bad to do some of the things that get you justifiably banned (such as intentionally using language that demeans people based on immutable traits). Because of this, it's much easier for them to avoid being deplatformed.
Given the large amount of information that Twitter claimed that turned out to be false, one correct claim doesn't really change much. It goes from around 0/1000 correct to 1/1001 correct. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
The vibe on other platforms was that it was going to be close, not that Kamala was going to win, which is the correct even handed judgement, and now all the votes have being counted, was correct.
The idea that I stopped clock is right twice a day but because it's twitter that means it's always right is a bit... come on. Hackernews commenters are supposed to be better than that.
They were censoring leaked pictures of Hunter Biden's penis.
You can't run a service where it shows every single post that someone wants to put up, even if they're "legal". It'd get full of spam, offend everyone so much they leave, or just force everyone to see Hunter Biden's penis.
> it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories.
In what way? I still only see the very same industry-focused information that I first started using Twitter for. If anything, X has improved in pulling in information from more industry players than I was seeing before, so I consider it to be an even more compelling product now.
But perhaps that same algorithm improvement is what you ultimately mean? As in, that X has become better at finding the information you want to see, so if you have an interest in "right wing" or conspiracy content then it is a greater likelihood of it exposing you to that than the Twitter of yore did?
Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies. Good on them for realizing and backing away, I guess, but won't they still feed other platforms? It does not appear that they are willing to halt production on that realization. Not to mention that this encourages others to still share their content on X, defeating the whole intent of no longer posting... The story doesn't add up.
On second thought, this is clearly an advertisement disguised as news trying to latch onto searches for Twitter/X. They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place. X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out, like the aforementioned industry practitioners sharing what they are doing in industry.
> Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies.
This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning.
> They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place
This is your claim - presented without evidence. You are also making multiple claims, also that The Guardian is publishing (essentially only) news on X and not also reactions, commentary and other content to X.
> X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out
The changes in the algorithm seem to have shifted this. News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices. The null hypothesis here would be that X is a place for nothing and beyond that - "maybe, or maybe not". I'm curious what evidence there is for X being an effective vehicle for 'personal' news distribution over time. Without that evidence, we should not accept any such claims.
> This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning.
Go on. There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it. But as they are not backing away from producing the content on the same concern, the association doesn't add up at all.
> This is your claim - presented without evidence.
Of course. That's what a discussion forum is for. If you want someone else's claim naturally you'd go talk to them instead. But as you have chosen to interact with me, logically you are here to hear my claim as I give it.
Is there some additional pertinence to you pointing out the obvious here? Because if so, I am afraid I missed it.
> News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices.
Most importantly, the news is difficult to convey when the users aren't there for news from a news organization. Let's face it, X is not well suited to conveying long format news in the first place. While the character limit isn't what it once was, the entire format of the service remains not particularly amenable to that kind of content. It is really only good for individuals sharing small tidbits of information, like something they did at work.
There are much better services for news publishers. That is where the users are. That is where publisher effort is going to be best spent. Of course you are not going to waste your time posting news on X for that reason.
>There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it.
>but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise... (from your child comment)
One can choose to leave a group/platform/party without believing they are contributing to the negative direction the group has taken. If I go to a social club and find that new leadership and new members changed the focus from sports to anti-immigration, I might not want to be associated with them anymore. That has nothing to do with feeling like I was "feeding it" or "contributing" to it.
> One can choose to leave a group/platform/party without believing they are contributing to the negative direction the group has taken.
It is true that one can make up any arbitrary reason for leaving, sure. They could have also said they decided to leave because the moon crossed into their zodiac. But when you get down to it, that's never actually the reason.
Undoubtedly the real story is that there is no compelling economic reason to post on X. It is not a service for long-form news content. Nobody goes there to read that kind of content. It is like trying to post cat photos on HN. Soon you're going to realize that you are wasting your time. There are places for cat photos, as there are places for long-form new content, but HN and X, respectively, are not it.
> If I go to a social club and find that new leadership and new members changed the focus from sports to anti-immigration, I might not want to be associated with them anymore.
With material impact, perhaps. But posting on X is a solitary activity. This is more like giving up on Solitaire because you thought the Queen of Hearts looked at you funny. Which, no matter how much you claim it to be, doesn't make much sense. More likely you were just bored of the game and made up an expiation to not have to admit that you were bored.
"X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse." [1]
"Social media can be an important tool for news organisations and help us to reach new audiences but at this point X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work. Our journalism is available and open to all on our website and we would prefer people to come to theguardian.com and support our work there" [1]
> There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it.
Could you define more precisely what you mean by "contributing to it?" I think my understanding there might differ from what you meant. I don't want to talk past nor at you.
> Of course. That's what a discussion forum is for. If you want someone else's claim naturally you'd go talk to them instead. But as you have chosen to interact with me, logically you are here to hear my claim as I give it.
Hacker news discussion has a culture of discussions based on supported claims. Unsupported claims are often challenged as being unsupported. The culture war topics often degrade as it gets more of the Reddit & X style crowds that are more interested in winning discussions rather than having discussions. I believe the culture of hacker news in this regard sets it apart. In essence, this guideline: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
> Is there some additional pertinence to you pointing out the obvious here? Because if so, I am afraid I missed it.
I want to drill into the substance of your claim, and/or better understand it. I think my first interpretation might have actually been off-base. (So please, do define better what you mean by "contributing to it.")
> Most importantly, the news is difficult to convey when the users aren't there for news from a news organization. Let's face it, X is not well suited to conveying long format news in the first place.
I largely agree and is a major criticism I have X and lots of social media (eg: reddit, facebook, instagram). I would go further and say that none of those forums are all that well suited for sharing truth, nor discovering truth. I am passionate about truth (it is why I love math, logic, science & programming so much. There is very little in life that is black & white, true or false, correct or wrong.)
> It is really only good for individuals sharing small tidbits of information
I agree. On the other side of the coin, tidbits of misinformation too. The culture on X I do not believe is to reward sharing true viewpoints. Instead, dunking & hot-takes are rewarded (AFAIK, my impression, particularly so for Reddit as well).
> "X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."
That may be true, but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise...
> "X has become a cesspool, our work no longer belongs there."
That doesn't really make any sense, but even if we accept the irrationality of it, they claim to still want others to share their content on X, so apparently their work does belong there. A curious contradiction.
> The culture of hacker news is to present evidences based discussion. Unsupported claims are challenged, very frequently with "citation needed." This is something that sets hacker news commentary apart from Reddit or X.*
I have to disagree. "Citation needed" is stupid Reddit nonsense (that sometimes creeps into HN, but thankfully infrequently; it is not acceptable behaviour). On Hacker News, there is an expecting of being smart enough to carry on your own conversation using your own words without needing to outsource to an arbitrary third-party. If bringing in data helps with your comment, so be it, but if all you can offer is something like "citation needed", you contribute nothing and are participating in anti-social, bad-faith behaviour.
Logically, if a comment is so poorly prepared that you can't figure it out on its own standing, you either:
1. Work with the author in good faith to understand what they are trying to say. If you find value in reaching for external resources to accomplish that, then fine. Offering something like "XYZ says this, which contradicts what I think you are trying to say. Was that your intent?" would be reasonable, but "Go do my homework for me!" is uncalled for.
2. Accept it as a lost cause and ignore it. Those who cannot string a worthwhile post together will soon grow bored with being ignored and leave. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.
> "X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."
>> That may be true, but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise...
To be clear, the first quote is a direct quote from the Guardian article. Not my words. Does that change your response? I suspect it would, since their words would seemingly not be "irrelevent to the Guardian."
> I have to disagree. "Citation needed" is stupid Reddit nonsense
Interesting. My perspective is that this is more a wikipedia phenomenon. Reddit enjoys responses like "Sir, this is a Wendy's." The HN guideline that discussions should get more substantive I think means discussions should become more grounded in facts as claims are challenged and discussed.
> On Hacker News, there is an expecting of being smart enough to carry on your own conversation using your own words without needing to outsource to an arbitrary third-party.
Can you link this expectation back to the discussion guidelines? The first part of what you wrote here I could be convinced of. The second part, the "needing to outsource" part, I disagree with. Either a person on HN is an expert in the field, and if not, they should very much "outsource" their claims (AKA provide evidence) to show that those claims are supported and are not just random thoughts. Random thoughts are not truth, our perception and gut instincts are often wrong. What we think is generally kinda worthless, what we know via data & facts OTOH is information.
> but if all you can offer is something like "citation needed", you contribute nothing and are participating in anti-social, bad-faith behaviour.
If someone is making claims that are unsupported, potentially incorrect. Is pointing that out and asking for the basis of the claim completely without value? I agree it is a bit anti-social, but this is not improv where the best response is "yes, and...". In contrast, the alternative is to let bad info just sit, unchallenged, and IMO be perpetuated. So, is there no value in saying "hey, wait a minute, there is no data to support your claims; please back up and give that data, or make it clear that you're spouting pure opinion." We disagree seemingly that HN comments is a place for pure opinions (which is okay to disagree).
> Accept it as a lost cause and ignore it. Those who cannot string a worthwhile post together will soon grow bored with being ignored and leave. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.
Interesting. My view is there are plenty of trolls, they are legion, and they can "win" through sock puppetry and sheer volume. For example, this article is about The Onion & Infowars, yet most of the discussion is back to X. Most HN discussion of Elon Musk usually go off-topic and become dominated by very tired and familiar discussions. In part, it is not about the trolls but the other readers. It is clear when people cannot support their claims vs when they can.
> (Why did you remove the rest?)
My apologies. I was hoping you would not react quite so quickly. After getting a coffee, I think I may have profoundly misunderstood what you wrote and deleted my first response. The second response needed a little cleaning up to read well (my intent was not to alter the substance, but enhance clarity).
No. It was understood to be of their origin. But X being a toxic platform has no bearing on the content The Guardian might post, unless they think their content is also toxic. Recognizing that would justify no longer posting toxic content, sure, but otherwise there is no reason to stop posting.
I mean, aside from the obvious: That nobody is reading the content anyway, not fitting X's niche on the internet, so it is a waste of resources to post. I can understand why they are no longer going to do so. Frankly, I'm surprised they ever did.
> My perspective is that this is more a wikipedia phenomenon.
That is where it originated, as far as I know, yes. But it actually serves a purpose there as collecting quotes around a subject is what that service is largely about, and quotes benefit from citations.
But if you are writing comments on HN made up of quotes from others, why...? Why not let the authors of those quotes speak for themselves? This is, as far as I can tell, not a wiki, it is a discussion forum. Do you disagree? Surely we're here to read what the first person has to say? If I want to have a discussion with a third-party, I'll go talk to them instead. No need for a pointless middleman.
Furthermore, a citation by its very nature requires a quote, but any time I have seen "citation needed" here a quote is nowhere to be found. The HN comment being replied to with that saying is literally the citation! So, not only is it in bad faith, it doesn't even make sense. Fine for a tired Reddit meme, I guess, but has no place on HN.
> Can you link this expectation back to the discussion guidelines?
I don't know. I'm not about to read it. It has no relevance here. The expectations of a service like this come from the users, not some arbitrary guideline document.
Do you want this service to be anything else? Surely we don't need another Wikipedia? I, for one, come to HN because users here actually know things and are willing to talk about it. They don't have to rely on some other person to feed them information. That's the value proposition.
Wikis are fine for what they are, but Wikipedia is right there. Do we really need another one? I say no, but if you think otherwise?
> My view is there are plenty of trolls, they are legion, and they can "win" through sock puppetry and sheer volume.
They only "win" if you react to them. That's what they are here for: Attention. Ignore it and they'll quit wasting their time.
I mean, think about it: If you kept posting and nobody ever replied or pressed one of the vote buttons, wouldn't you get bored of being here too? You may as well write in a private journal if you want to write for no audience. The value over and above a private journal is the audience.
One thing is for certain: You are not going to chase them away with "citation needed".
I again appreciate the respectful dialog, thank you. I think we might be coming close to talking in circles though and would do well to wrap up soon.
I want to emphasize a bit up front that (after having sat on it a bit), I really reject the framing of "outsourcing" thought when giving citations. 'Sourcing' is giving evidence to why a thought might be correct, without it - it's navel gazing, frankly worthless. I go into a bit more detail later in the below responses.
--------------
> I mean, aside from the obvious: That nobody is reading the content anyway
I find that quite doubtful. X does have a large user-base. I suspect the number was tens of thousands (but I don't rightly know).
> But if you are writing comments on HN made up of quotes from others, why...? Why not let the authors of those quotes speak for themselves?
The authors are not omnipresent and clearly won't respond to every random discussion forum. On the other side of the coin, personal opinions are not worth a lot - particularly here on HN.
Which reminds me of your "outsourcing" framing". Backing statements with facts and data is not outsourcing, but instead it is evidence, data, reason. When a person is forced to provide data, to think about why they think they know things - two things happen: 1) quality of statements relative to being truthful goes up (ie: you say more things that are actually true). 2) you realize how much you think you know turns out to be completely wrong, that without data or evidence, you're probably wrong and don't actually know (ie: we think we know a whole hell of a lot more than we actually do, and we are wrong quite often when speaking without facts and without data).
This is something I learned very deeply at Amazon, a place with a culture that is data driven to the max. The saying is there are only three answers at Amazon: "(1) Yes, because of this data. (2) No, because of this data. (3) I don't know, I will get data for that soon."
Working in programming, at those jobs, just stating stuff and being right 90% of the time gets you fired. You have to provide data & reasoning why you think something is true. You can't rely on just how you feel or your intuition. The latter is a poor methodology for finding truth. It goes to why we use science to find truth and not intuition. Science is a powerful way to find truth, intuition is not. We can see what science has done for the last 200 years, vs intuition that turns out to be wrong so often (but seemed like it must have been right).
> not a wiki, it is a discussion forum. Do you disagree?
To my previous point, discussions not grounded in truth are largely going to be incorrect, navel gazing. Having a reasoned discussion is different from a wiki. A person is able to very well make multiple points, backed my multiple sources to provide well founded conclusions. It is the difference of talking to a scientist vs someone else that spouts a series of unfounded conclusions. Now, we don't all have to be 'scientists', but we can use the same methodology to support what we say. Even experts would provide citations of why they think certain things - their benefit is largely that they have already read most of the material and can draw from a much larger knowledge base to connect facts together. In contrast the lay person needs to be concerned of the Dunning-Kruger effect and would do well to remind themselves they are approaching a topic as a novice.
> If I want to have a discussion with a third-party,
Except you're not. It is akin to me saying 'I am saying X, because of Y data and Z reasoning'. That gives a much greater probability of actually saying something meaningful. Rather than simply saying "X" without reasoning. As I mentioned earlier, without any type of backing, that is truthiness, not truth. It goes to methodology of deciding what is correct.
> Furthermore, a citation by its very nature requires a quote
People often give a link to where data comes from, or where a conclusion comes from without a direct quote. There is risk of mischaracterizing the source, but no direct quote can be needed when the conclusions or data from a source are amalgamated. Sometimes a person can give multiple sources to back up a single statement. I don't agree to this framing.
> "citation needed" here a quote is nowhere to be found
This is bad framing. 'citation needed' is another way to ask for evidence, data - more than just an opinion that is based on what you think and feel. It is an ask to move away from truthiness, to truth. It is a way of saying "that is your opinion, please provide data so we can decide if there is a basis in reality, or if you are just communicating your own truthiness."
> Fine for a tired Reddit meme
I have never seen that as a reddit meme, and have an opposite perspective. I've found the bar for truth on reddit is essentially non-existent, nobody cares about evidence there (my impression). Reddit is almost more entertainment than it is a place to learn something.
> but has no place on HN
I respectfully disagree, HN asks that we get more substantive when discussions go on. To me, that means the conversations should become more rooted in fact, data & truth - rather than back and forth with more truthiness claims aimed "at each other" rather than discussed with each other.
> I don't know. I'm not about to read it [HN discussion guidelines]. It has no relevance here.
Everyone is expected to read the discussion guidelines before posting here. AFAIK it is asked that you do. The guidelines of the discussion forum where you are discussing are of course relevant.
> The expectations of a service like this come from the users, not some arbitrary guideline document.
Agree on the former, but the latter does follow from the former. The guidelines frame the expectations of users.
This article is actually something to be flagged. The discussion here is largely an aberration. Notice how we have yet to mention once "The Onion" or "Infowars". Overall the article is not a good fit for HN.
> They only "win" if you react to them. That's what they are here for: Attention. Ignore it and they'll quit wasting their time.
In some cases I would agree. In other cases though, trolls seek to dominate conversations. The 'Seattle Times' discussion threads became completely unreadable. Any comment was followed by 30 responses that veered away to some other talking points and was a noise that drowned out all other conversation. I call it akin to an intellectual DDOS. Trolls don't have to be right, just loud in order to dominate the discourse and prevent the truth from being heard by obscuring it in noise. I feel HN is well enough moderated and has a particular community where that is not tolerated and there is therefore often a good bit to learn form the discussion. The discussion is not just noise of people talking at each other, ignoring what the other has written and just waiting to write platitudes and endless truthiness of their perspective.
> I mean, think about it: If you kept posting and nobody ever replied or pressed one of the vote buttons, wouldn't you get bored of being here too?
I can see that as being the case. On the other side, do you not think there are people who are simply ideological? That want to be sure if there is a conversation about a topic that they care about, that they want to be sure the conversation concludes with 'their points', and 'their truthiness?' In a way, it's defending an in-group.
> You are not going to chase them away with "citation needed".
I agree. Though, sometimes conversation threads are not intended solely for the other party. HN is read by many, having read such threads myself as a third party - it becomes clear when one side is talking in bad faith. Not answering questions, not responding to points, not providing data. It reveals their argument to be bad; sometimes that is the strongest form of persuasion IMO when someone is so clearly making bad arguments. Again, the persuasion is not of the troll, or necessarily the other person, but the thousands of readers. Sometimes it's more the readers who are the audience than the intractable mind of someone that is wanting to die on some hill of truthiness without a shred of evidence.
[edits: clarity]
-----------------------
[edit, added this section]
Now, there are still places where citations are not needed and are useful and interesting for HN IMO. To this extent I think we might agree. Namely when additional perspectives are raised, and questions asked. That is very different from making unbacked claims. It is very easy to change an unbacked claim into a question - and that keeps the dialog more open IMO and away from incorrect rabbit holes. For example: "Nobody reads the Guardian on X", vs "how many readers do you think they engaged with on X? Do we think that was a significant number?" Staying away from assumptions of what you don't actually know I think gives a lot of healthy space in a dialog, so long as the questions don't go into a bad faith & leading territory (eg: gish-galloping).
----------------
[additional edit, added this section]
Backing up a bit - I think The Guardian layed out their motives very clearly. I believe you ascribed additional motive incorrectly. To which my response is: "show us", and otherwise gave key quotes so you can argue with the motive as written by The Guardian itself. Ascribing the additional motive IMO is incorrect and/or borderline conspiracy theory. To which I want to know why you think that, what you are basing those beliefs on. That is why a response that was largely just quotes from The Guardian was appropriate, it was a "here are their words, here is their exact reasoning."
On further reflection, I don't think I liked some of the examples I gave. I'll finish with stating that those making claims should be expected to also provide evidence for those claims. Otherwise, it is truthiness. Going back to the original disagreement, I see no reason to not take The Guardian's word for their motivation, it seemed clear - and I see no reason to ascribe an ulterior motive (at least without providing evidence for it).
Implying that is how people use X? Continually creating new burner accounts, not giving "the algorithm" what it needs to provide what they really want to see? Seems unlikely.
I suspect those who complain it is a "right wing" echo chamber are using longstanding accounts and actually engaging with "right wing" content, which trains "the algorithm" of their preference to see more of the same. Anecdotally, those I know who complain of "right wing" echo chambers are also the first people to gorge on "right wing" media to see what "they" are up to.
If you use lists, then you probably won't notice that much. However if your looking at the "for you" page, shits just kept on getting more extreme. Just wildly off the deepend scams or abuse.
Before you could just filter out that stuff as it was fairly rare. but its just everywhere.
> However if your looking at the "for you" page, shits just kept on getting more extreme.
That's all I ever read. I only follow a small number of people who produce high quality content related to my industry, though. Perhaps that is what primes the "For You" page to say within the same realm and not go off the rails as you suggest?
I'm sure you are right that garbage in, garbage out applies. But why feed it garbage?
I think the issue is that I follow people who had diverse opinions that were different to mine, from across the spectrum.
In the old times, you could see _why_ a tweet appeared in the stream (as in x follows, y liked, z replied) so curation could happen. But that's gone because musk finally figured out that him liking porn tweets was public.
Before I could say "I don't like edgelord content" and that class of tweet disappeared.
Hence the utility of lists for me. It allows me to follow people who regularly like content that I hate, but allows me to see what they tweet.
So, you are indeed right. I think I follow more than one subject, which causes the issue.
I take it that left wingers feel that "community notes" isn't effective or sufficient to combat right wing beliefs that are wrong?
The people on the right seem satisfied for now that they can "combat misinformation with more information". (That's a misquote by the way, I believe he said better information, not more. On second thought, he may have said it both ways.)
Has anyone discussed why the right believes this can work, and the left doesn't?
> believing 2020 was stolen (which is one I'm willing to believe)
Interesting. What forms the basis of your belief?
Personally, I think it’s interesting that over 60 lawsuits were filed across the U.S. to challenge the 2020 result, and not a single one produced any evidence of widespread voter fraud. Even judges appointed by Trump himself agreed that there was no evidence to support the claims. What do you think the simplest explanation for this is?
Well at this point there are two plausible possibilities. 1) The circumstances around covid and last minute election rules changes made it possible to cheat in ways that slide beneath the high evidentiary standards of the courts. Or 2) Joe Biden was by far the most popular presidential candidate in history; easily getting many millions more votes than Barrack Obama, Donald Trump, or Kamala Harris.
Given that we are reliably informed that significant electoral fraud is impossible, we can only conclude the Democrats made a catastrophic own goal by forcing the greatest candidate ever out of the race.
> made it possible to cheat in ways that slide beneath the high evidentiary standards of the courts
But the issue isn't that the evidence didn't meet high standards -- it was that there wasn't any evidence at all. In many cases, the plaintiffs who filed these lawsuits dismissed them voluntarily, not even trying to put forth evidence.
> Or 2) Joe Biden was by far the most popular presidential candidate in history
I think we can all agree that's not the case. But have you considered that voters often turn out to vote against the other party rather than for their own candidate? At the end of 2020, a lot of people were feeling very unhappy with the incumbent administration. In fact, that was true globally -- incumbents fared terribly after the pandemic.
> But the issue isn't that the evidence didn't meet high standards -- it was that there wasn't any evidence at all. In many cases, the plaintiffs who filed these lawsuits dismissed them voluntarily, not even trying to put forth evidence.
Similarly, there is no evidence of shoplifting in San Francisco. Prosecutors don't even bring cases, let alone bring them and then dismiss them voluntarily. Therefore we can clearly conclude there is no shoplifting at all there, let alone shoplifting at a scale that would affect commerce.
So you’re suggesting that Donald Trump and his allies had the same level of disinterest in winning the 2020 election as San Francisco has in prosecuting theft? Huh.
Well because it's obvious and I figured that you're smart enough to see that.
To spell it out for you: the set of evidence that is admissible in court is a tiny fraction of the set of all evidence that exists. Furthermore, the set of evidence that is not only admissible in court, but is actually presented to a court is an even yet tinier proper subset of the admissible evidence.
When you exclude the vast majority of evidence that a thing may be happening, you don't actually have grounds to say that the thing isn't happening.
And you still avoid my question: WHY. Why didn't those litigants even try to proffer evidence? Why does it just so happen that the only evidence available to support these claims is so weak that it's not even worth trying?
I think the reason you keep avoiding my question is that you don't have an answer for it. All I see are repeated trips around a loop of self-reinforcing beliefs that are rooted in nothing. (Or do you even believe this stuff? Here I am trying to understand what's going on in your head, and perhaps you're just going through the motions...)
Anyway, you're wrong about evidence. Most evidence is admissible, especially if it's going before a bench. What the legal process doesn't allow is "evidence" lacking any indicia of trustworthiness. And as to your claim that the evidence "actually presented to a court is an even yet tinier proper subset of the admissible evidence", well, uh, that's entirely up to the litigants themselves. As I've said, if you won't even bother trying to put up your evidence, one has to wonder why.
A third possibility you aren't considering: a lot of Democrats were bored and stuck at home and had nothing better to do, so they voted for Biden in 2020. Come 2024, they had plenty of other things to do than vote, so many of those who had in 2020 decided not to bother.
Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information? Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source. We know policing speech doesn't work, whoever does the policing introduces their own biases, this was clear as day with the hunter laptop story and how the goverment put pressure on social media companies to supress it.
This “sounds smart” and I’m sure it circulates well in conversation. In practice, no. The point of “facts” is to identify useful truths that guide decisions. When some portion of the distribution of people identify misalignment, which is inevitable—not optional—then they will true up.
4 years on and a significant proportion of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen. Just how many years will it take for that to true up?
I notice you don't make a definite claim that it wasn't stolen. You're annoyed by the fact others believe it was, based on what you feel is insufficient evidence, yes?
Surely the burden of proof is on those making a claim of election interference? Elections are designed to be reliable and there haven't been reports of previous elections being "stolen", so I would think that reasonable evidence should be provided if people want to push the idea that an election was interfered with.
There is no burden of proof required to assert a hypothesis. This is how none of truth nor science nor security operate. There is evidence gathering activity which supports or undermines, strengthening or weakening a hypothesis. Ideally, one dispositive form of evidence affirms or denies a hypothesis. It is not difficult to find historical precedent of election fraud, but in any case, other claims are weak evidence.
These are recounts, audits, and security guards. No recounts deviated by that much, even the massive Arizona recount found no significant deviation.
> It is not difficult to find historical precedent of election fraud
Please provide that. The evidence AFAIK is counted as essentially "parts per million", it is so small. Meanwhile there are a variety of safeguards, audits, verifications & recounts.
The null hypothesis in this case I don't believe would be "fraudulent election", so it is a claim.
This is true, if you're billing your hypothesis as a hypothesis. The problem is that prominent Republicans billed their "election was stolen" hypothesis as a fact, claimed to have boatloads of evidence in order to convince the public, and then never published that evidence.
In the aftermath of this clearly deceptive behavior, they've maintained the support of Republican voters who still believe the lie despite none of the evidence ever being released.
It's one thing to claim something is true and that you have evidence, then release the evidence and find out that it's insufficient to win in court. It's another thing entirely to make a claim, say you have overwhelming evidence to support it, and never release any evidence at all. In the former case, maybe you got overzealous or maybe you were dealing with an unsympathetic judge. In the latter, the only rational way to interpret the situation is that you were intentionally misleading your audience.
Why do you say something is treated as fact? For example, are either the ‘cheating’ or ‘no cheating’ hypotheses verifiable in any productive regard? There may be confusion between “absence of evidence” versus “evidence of absence.”
It is absolutely fantastic that this assertion draws ire from those who have no substantial response. It is intended to poke you directly in the eyeballs. That crowd so often favors censorship to protect the same.
If you have a substantial response, cast it forth.
Your claim is not false, but not universally true either, the counter is alex jones, the flat earth movement, religion as well, you can spend nearly an infinity believing in lies. The human brain is quite malleable to lies.
So what? People have the right to be wrong and ignorant. It's far better than having The Ministry of Tru... sorry I mean Disinformation Governance Board. Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually. For example consider the Iraq war, a war the american public was rushed into without the free flow of information, something you seem keen on, but now that the public has access to info the same republican base that was in support of the war now hates war hawks like john bolton.
> Even if lies spread far and wide they always get exposed eventually
Eventually, yes, but until it happens, bodies are piling up.
EDIT: Also, FWIW, the truth is often exposed nearly immediately, yet for some people, once they have chosen to believe the lie, they can't be convinced of the truth.
It's well established that adults who read incorrect information frequently don't find out it was wrong and become more skeptical of the source. Some people operate that way, but it's a small minority unfortunately.
In particular, it's been shown that people with dogmatic beliefs strengthen those beliefs when shown evidence to the contrary rather than questioning them.
> Why are we so worried about adults reading incorrect information?
Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
And I imagine the owners of Comet Ping Pong would have greatly preferred that adults didn't read lies about Hillary running a child sex ring in their basement. [0]
Haitian immigrants in Ohio certainly weren't fans of Trump claiming that they're kidnapping and eating pets.
Speech has consequences.
> Once they eventually find the info was wrong they'll be more sceptical of that source.
...have you been living in a cave for the last 10 years? I just can't fathom how someone can be so naive to actually think this.
If there was any truth to this, Infowars would have been damn near been dead on arrival. Fox News would have been bankrupt before Obama even began his second term.
Or maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse and operating under the assumption that people will accept when they're wrong.
Sorry but I'm not willing to live in an insane orwellian world just so your grandma gets her vaccine. It's her family's responsiblity to convince her and if she still refuses shes an adult she has the right to refuse treatment and vaccines.
As for libel, it has always existed and always will. There are laws against it to protect people if they suffer any damage from it. It's not without consequences.
What you're proposing is so much worse. Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose. How will you protect yourself from the goverment's false accusations?
> Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose
You're straw-manning. I never proposed anything like government enforcement against misinformation.
I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.
Who gets to decide what is misinformation is an entirely different issue. But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation. Again, set aside the question of "Well, who decides what is misinformation?" and consider just the mere concept of it.
Hmmm... I really wonder what the said tyrants did when they got into power? Oh that's right they imposed heavy restrictions on speech and all forms of media. And it's not like there was free speech before them, the Weimar republic tried banning them as well. It's almost like challenging ideas and defeating them on an intellectual level is far better than trying to supress them.
... Yeah but they didn't do that before they were in power. They abused misinformation to get to a position to then lock it down. That's indeed what I'm saying.n I'm not disagreeing that they lock it down once in power.
> Because I'd much rather my grandma get a COVID vaccine than trying to find a source of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
So the misinformation didn't affect your decision making. Instead, the misinformation you were exposed to was corrected by your exposure to more, better information.
Those are all valid disadvantages of community notes, and free speech in general.
How do you explain that there are smart people who have known about these very disadvantages for many years, and still respond positively to "the solution to misinformation is more/better information"?
I don't suppose you know of a solution (to a problem that I admit I haven't fully specified) that has no disadvantages. The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening.
> How do you explain that there are smart people who [..] respond positively to "the solution to misinformation is more/better information"
Someone can be intelligent and still have misplaced hope for humanity to the point where I would consider them to be outright naive.
All it took was an hour or two on social media back in 2020/21. You could easily find someone who insisted that Ivermectin cured COVID, point out tons of studies showing that it's worthless against COVID, and yet they would reject all those studies as lies.
> I don't suppose you know of a solution
Nope. :-(
Kids are taught the scientific method, but that doesn't seem to be enough. They learn enough to pass a test and then forget about it all.
> The proposed solutions I've seen appearing on the left are frightening.
Agreed, though be careful to not read words that aren't there. Elsewhere in this thread, someone accused me of being in favor of government enforcement against free speech despite me saying nothing of the sort. Arguments that misinformation is bad is not an argument that it should be legally enforced!
In other words, yes, some leftists believe that misinformation should be illegal, but not everyone arguing that misinformation is bad is arguing that it should be illegal.
I'm looking back with how much teenage edgelord/ironic/sarcastic speech that was rampant in my youth covered for people who actually held horrible views like white nationalism. I thought it was all just shock humor. I know better now, but I'm worried about that persisting in kids. I think it's always been that way. I don't know how to mitigate it.
I agree with the first part totally, and you're probably right I invented something there. I only meant that free speech / "more information helps" seems to resonate with the right, and censorship seems to resonate with the left. Not so?
Depends what you mean in regards to rewriting. If there's a position that runs counter to our current scientific consensus, I think it should be updated to reflect the current consensus, but when I was reading my history/physics books they would cover what people believed at a particular time period. I don't see any issue with that. We're always learning more about the world around us. We are not an omniscient species.
Unless there's a more specific example you can think of w.r.t rewriting.
Sounds like you haven't heard of the re-writing of books in the interest of over-enthusiastic DEI. There's non-fiction and fiction examples. Salman Rushdie described it as "absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed" [1].
Apparently children's books can't use the word "black" or "white" any more. And in the children's book "Witches", a witch posing as “a cashier in a supermarket” now poses as “a top scientist”. It's blunt-force rewriting by patronising leftists. Witches are not meant to be role models for little girls. It doesn’t matter where they work.
Neither the left nor right are monolithic enough to make those generalizations. The anti-communism suppression of the McCarthy era is a counter-example of that resonance & plenty of left wing examples of the exact idea of "more speech is what is needed to extinguish bad ideas." Those are counter examples to demonstrate it is not a monolithic group in neither time nor space.
Of course it's scalable. Community notes are written by people, so increasing the amount of people writing notes means it's scalable. Users find the added context helpful, so more notes are rated by more people more often. That's the definition of scale.
> the value of it has long since diminished.
No. The note remains forever on the tweet. There is no "diminishing". Anyone who has interacted with that post in the past is notified about the note. Our own Prime Minister here in Australia has had a few of his posts community noted. Politicians love to make bold claims about how awesome they are. They are note magnets. It's not a perfect system, but it's a good system.
> Anyone who has interacted with that post in the past is notified about the note.
Having read or seen a post seems to be the most important part. That is not defined as part of "interacted". AFAIK, most X posts are viewed once and then never viewed again. It is a tiny fraction that actually "interacts" with a post. Hence, the value is diminished since the majority of people that read a post are never informed of the community note.
Per X: "Community Notes sends notifications to everyone who has replied to, Liked or reposted a post after a note starts showing on it." [1]
> It is a tiny fraction that actually "interacts" with a post...Hence, the value is diminished
Are you claiming we're in "information danger" because community notes isn't there to watch people post things in real time? Exactly how much of a pre-school do you want the internet to be? Do you want a school teacher looking over your shoulder as you type?
As you should know, interaction with a post by liking or replying, means the post had the most impression on that reader. The people you're worried about who don't interact, you have zero data on. You don't know whether they disagreed with the post, disbelieved or otherwise unaffected by the post. In fact, we do have some data. The post made such little impression that they didn't bother liking or replying.
People are not damaged goods after reading an untrue post online. The internet contains endless examples of disputed information, corrected only after the first post is read. For example, right here on HN. This place historically contains the following pattern:
"I think X should Y because Z"
Later that day or week, someone counters:
"actually, you haven't considered A or B in your reasoning of Z, which points to Y being inadequate".
In other words, the claim or suggestion that community notes is "diminished" because it isn't correcting misinformation as it spills from our keyboards, is an irrational claim.
The reason it's increasingly an "echo chamber" is because liberals are so offended by actual free speech that they stopped posting there. To blame conservatives for this development is illogical.
Data Shows X Is Suspending Far Fewer Users for Hate Speech
And, finally: Alex Jones was unbanned. That alone is proof of rising support for hate speech. He's literally been proven to be a lying provocateur in court, it doesn't get much clearer than that
I guess the "everything app" aspect would make sense for a rebrand. But that aspect feels nowhere close to reality yet, so it still seems to odd to me.
Twitter stopped doing the "follower feed" thing for years before Elon bought the website. The propaganda has gotten much worse, but let's not pretend Twitter wasn't widely considered the worst website on the face of the planet (except Facebook) even before Elon took over
1. I think the main thing is that Elon's own tweets are almost always make it to global broadcast via For You feed.
2. This effectively makes everyone see whatever Musk personally likes/retweets
3. It is soft of correct that there is more freedom of speech due to slashing/nonexistent moderation
4. But because algo promotes whatever Musk retweets, it makes Musk chief in charge of the algorithm. Whatever Musk likes - will be shown to everyone.
5. Because the rest of the feed is noise and garbage, this effectively makes Musk inject a strong signal to a feed and makes him a moderator. If censors previously would censor by deleting posts, he censors by throwing garbage and noisy posts and sprinkling signal in a few places
You can block him and that doesn't happen. The main problem is the algorithm is wildly oversensitive and will show you 100 of any one thing you linger on for too long.
Same thing happens with competitors though. That's all Threads is. I enabled Bluesky's occasional algorithm posts in the following feed and it will not stop trying to show me hardcore gay porn I very much didn't ask for.
but you don't see _all_ from the people you follow in "following", some end up in "for you". So if you want to see stuff from people you follow you need to look at the rage-bait from the algorithmic feed.
I never used Twitter but I left Facebook for exactly that reason. I just want to keep up with my friends. I don't want to constantly see whatever narrative some corporate media entity is pushing.
I think the product should be called Twitter and the company called X. Sort of like Facebook/Meta. Which is what Musk should have done from the beginning, but we can fix it for him.
I believe Xitter (pronounced 'shitter') is the preferred satirical term, and one that many deem to be an accurate portrayal of the sites user experience since it was taken over by Mr Musk.
The auction included all of the InfoWars and several associated corporations' assets, including the studio and the supplements business. At one point the settlement administrator was trying to get Alex's Twitter handle.
I believe he's been doing some half-ass scheming to create essentially the same company but in his parents' name, and I doubt he has a problem getting listeners back.
| As for the vitamins and supplements, we are halting their sale immediately. Utilitarian logic dictates that if we can extend even one CEO’s life by 10 minutes, diluting these miracle elixirs for public consumption is an unethical waste. Instead, we plan to collect the entire stock of the InfoWars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents down into a single candy bar–sized omnivitamin that one executive (I will not name names) may eat in order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal.
On the internet, telling people what they want to hear will always attract an audience. If the audience is larger than a thousand or so people, then you can make money by leveraging your audience's trust in you to sell them supplements, cash for gold schemes, boxed mattresses, meal delivery kits, or VPNs.
Some people wonder what the point is of flat-earthers arguing with everyone about their "alternative science". The answer is so they can identify the fools who they can scam with their various schemes...
Not dissimilar to Fox News or any other media company where the main purpose of the content is to get people to stay for the ads. Turns out rage-baiting works extremely well for driving engagement among certain groups.
The trick that Jones has perfected is the ad pivot. When you watch most media, the line between content and ad is generally pretty clear. With jones, it was often very blurry. Like, he does do regular ads, but he'll also be ranting about globalists for 10 minutes and then drop in something like "They want to destroy your mind which is why you need our deep earth iodine crystals and sea algae which is proven to stop globalist mind control."
He does it pretty much out of habit. He literally did an ad pivot while on the stand in his court cases.
Fox news is pushing an agenda first and foremost. The ad money was just a bonus. Rupert Murdoch didn't need the ad money. Just like with Sky News he was more interested in the "reasons of prestige and politics for keeping it" than the profits.
Oh man, you're in for a treat. Look up some videos on youtube, the classic being John Oliver's 2017 piece; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyGq6cjcc3Q . He's adjacent to the newly mainstream right, yes, but he's been around for a long time as a more radical+fringe actor, and has all the baggage that goes along with that. A good portion (most?) of his money was made from selling vaguely anti-GMO and pro-masculinity products sold with a heavy dose of "big pharma doesn't want you to know this one trick".
Most of these things are DTC operations and usually for supplements since they are relatively unregulated. Turning viewership into money is usually done through ads but these guys are fairly toxic to most advertisers.
Supplements are a good alternative for podcasters. They’re like merch is for musicians etc. but usually run as a recurring revenue stream.
Scratch the surface of any of these people and you’ll find they are like this: huberman, Bryan Johnson, they’ll all have a DTC business.
Of course, it's random nonsense peddling, how else would it fund itself other than via a obvious grift? If you're gullible enough to watch Alex Jones and believe him, you're gullible enough to buy snake oil to increase your penis.
Infowars was a supplements business. their business model was to brainwash people with conspiracy theories and sell supplements that solve the problems they made up
>... Infowars had a supplements business?
Yeah check out an advert for CAVEMAN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-ZqD9-W1_8 . I used to like Infowars 10+ years ago (I'm from New Zealand) when the site was a news aggregate site so you could read the sources. Now that it is him just talking I don't visit the site that often. I remember walking around in a small township in Norway (just under 10,000 people) and seeing a Infowars sticker on a road light. So yeah he used to have massive reach, I don't know if he still does.
Perhaps The Onion should ask - who gets most promotion of this?
Well, we’re all talking about the onion. And I, personally, haven’t read onion content in a long, long while. So this kind of put them back on the radar for me.
But I could be one of only a few people who fell out of onion readership?
More likely is that they believe the next four years will provide them a lot of comedy fodder and they’re setting their pieces early. For them the election is likely to be pretty good for business.
>I, personally, haven’t read onion content in a long, long while
The onion was kind of dead for a while under various shitty owners, but was bought this year by Jeff Lawson of Twilio and is now being run by former NBC reporter Ben Collins. The new stuff since the acquisition has been a bit hit or miss, but at least they're trying again.
So far I've gotten two of those, and each time I've thought the lead headline on the front page was super clunky. It always tries to fit in a joke by being twice as long as it should be.
While their stuff is brilliant at times, I don't actively seek it out because it leaves me pretty depressed and anxious. The parodies are almost indistinguishable from real events these days.
I even felt that way reading The Onion's article about this and then listening to Alex Jones' rant on Xitter. They sounded like they came from the same writer.
I believe that the current state of play is that Jones has to pay $1.1bn damages even post bankruptcy so maybe any future successes will lead to money for the Sandyhook families. I certainly hope so.
Ironically he may live longer to earn more for them - he'll never be able to afford a cigar again.
That's what I guessed from the story - I suppose that there would be a lot of reticence about buying this site from a lot of corporate actors, but maybe there are a lot of crazy people who could have bought it if the price was right. So, this way it is for sure a "dead" property.
Hmm NBC seems to imply that they purchased "Free Speech Systems", which is the parent company for the entire operation. Of course, who knows what they'll actually get other than the domain and copyrights -- Jones will just move all the physical assets into a storage unit/another office and dare them to complain, Guliani-style. Also, who knows if any of these stands for long, anyway; the cases are in state court (Connecticut and Texas) but what's stopping the president from issuing an executive order clearing them? Laws?
Re: "who gets the most promotion", IDK I think it's definitely the new owner of the Onion. Personally speaking, I think we're past the "don't give them attention" stage of fascism, and "they were bought by a satire company" isn't exactly a better rallying cry than Jones has already been spouting during the entire litigation. Plus, I trust them;
The anti-violence organization Everytown for Gun Safety said it will be the exclusive advertiser in The Onion’s new venture as part of a multiyear agreement. John Feinblatt, the group’s president, said in a statement that he hopes to “reach new audiences ready to hold the gun industry accountable for contributing to our nation’s gun violence epidemic.”
They are almost certainly going to sue for illegal enrichment. I'm certain that Jones will try and move assets and I'm sure he'll get caught doing that.
It means Onion sues Jones will likely be in the headlines a fair bit.
> Alex Jones is such a big name and has other channels (x.com, Joe Rogan etc.) that he can easily build a similar site/business under a new domain name.
Maybe but the judgement was for 1B USD. So any profits would probably be garnished away.
Basically, lawfare was used to censor Alex Jones. I wonder if this is a case for the Supreme Court and First Amendment rights?
If someone said on the Internet said that rs999gti was a "tax-evading, pyramid-scheming, mullet-wearing, karaoke-ruining, ferret-hoarding, snake-oil-selling, cereal-with-water-eating, grammar-mangling, table-manner-less, engagement-ring-pawning, salad-dodging, traffic-cone-stealing, apology-dodger," and it wasn’t true, I think you’d probably like to sue them and take their money too.
Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech, NOTE: I did not say free speech. What he did is reprehensible but not enough that he is basically black balled from making a living. Penalties yes, loss of livelihood no.
Having your wages garnished doesn't mean you starve to death. He's perfectly capable of making a living, supporting himself and his dependents, if any, but his ability to build wealth will be restricted. I don't know the particulars of this case, but generally:
"The garnishment amount is limited to 25% of your disposable earnings for that week (what's left after mandatory deductions) or the amount by which your disposable earnings for that week exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage, whichever is less."
> Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech
He was harassing parents of dead children in order to personally enrich himself. Why do you think he shouldn't have to forgo his ill begotten gains? It's only 1B USD, because he refused to stop doing it. And then he decided not to really show up for court and accept the summary judgement of 1B USD.
Most of his penalty has nothing to do with speech. He can keep on speaking all he wants. He might suffer consequences, but he is free to say whatever he wants to.
The judgment was not for an off-the-cuff remark or writing a few paragraphs online. He ran a smear campaign against people whose kids were shot, for almost a decade, even though he knew what he was saying was untrue. Jones's "speech" had severe real-world consequences for his targets, and there's no reason to assume he has repented. It would be no injustice if he was never allowed near a microphone again.
"Lawfare" is when people break the law and are actually prosecuted for it even though they are rich and right wing and think they laws don't apply to them.
Alex Jones wasn't even subtle about it. He was getting judgements telling him to stop spouting blatant lies about victims of a mass shooting and he just doubled down on the lies. Repeatedly. The courts kept giving him more rope and he kept tying more nooses.
Was it? The constitution lays out slander and libel as types of speech that can be censored. The trashy Jones then knowingly and maliciously lied about people for profit - aka libel and slander. Seems reasonable to take the money he made as well as punitive damages.
How does he make future money, you know for living?
The judgement basically means the courts get to garnish his wages until the judgement is paid.
Jones is a goof to me and I like seeing him rant and rave and wear foil hats. But I don't think anyone should have their livelihood taken from them by censorship of the courts. EDIT: remember all judgments and penalties cut both ways. Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media.
Lower the judgement to 1M USD (EDIT: or something reasonable) and let's move on.
Not sure how it works in the US, but e.g. in germany only a certain portion of your wages go towards debts, they let you have a certain portion for yourself since you need it to live.
His livelihood wasn't taken. His assets were taken because he did damages and has to pay for those damages.
He can go get all sorts of jobs. Yeah his wages will be garnished, but that doesn't mean his whole paycheck - just the lesser of 25% of the paycheck or 30x minimum wage. He can make money and a living with that just fine. Same as I'd expect for anyone intentionally lying and hurting people for money - whether I "follow" them or not.
Perhaps you should find some reputable sources for information, instead of relying on the proven liar to tell the truth about his situation?
You dont like cancel culture, but support Jones - a person who is literally being discussed for encouraging his followers to shut down the people saying their kids were killed.
I mean the statements about crisis actors and whatnot were maliciously false, and pure slander. But to those who beleived them, Jones was advocating for them to be cancelled - that is they should be stopped from spreading lies and that they should be locked up and sent away.
right, I was reading their comments, I cannot believe it. But hey, if you view the world like that, guys like Alex will always prosper and have a crowd.
He has for some time been telling his listeners to buy supplements from a new company set up in his father's name that is a thin cutout for the one ostensibly run by himself. It seems likely a good lawyer could pierce that corporate veil and go after the new company, but I don't know if that has happened.
> It seems likely a good lawyer could pierce that corporate veil and go after the new company, but I don't know if that has happened.
He's spent the whole time since losing the lawsuit illegally shifting assets to his parents and they bankruptcy courts haven't seemed to be able to stop that.
For what it's worth, a lawyer _did_ ask the presiding Judge Christopher Lopez to tell Alex Jones he definitely can't do that and solidify this in writing the terms of bankruptcy, and the judge simply refused to even try on the basis that everyone involved is an adult and ought to know better.
It’s standard practice to let somebody else own your things when you are in a position that don’t allow you to have something. It’s not provable easily and if it’s justice to charge him 1.4B for talking some shit it’s also justice to use the loopholes of the system.
That and the defiance, conspiracies, deep state, freedom-fighter verbal diarrhea until the bitter end. You almost get the feeling that he actually believes it all.
I'm hoping that Department Head Rawlings and Jim Anchower will return as contributors. When did T. Herman Zweibel pass the reins to Bryce P. Tetraeder?
"Walter Cicack, an attorney for First United American Companies, told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez that Murray changed the auction process only days before, deciding not to hold a round Wednesday where parties could outbid each other. Sealed bids were submitted last week, and the trustee chose only from those, Cicack said."
"“We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened,” he said. “No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”
An exact date of next week’s hearing was not immediately set.
After the hearing, Jones said on his show that he thought the auction was unfairly rigged and expressed optimism that the judge would nullify the sale."
Changing the bidding process days in advance and then accepting the lower bid (out of two) seems less normal though. I think it's obvious they're trying to stop Jones and his associates from simply buying back the business.
I'm not sure of the legal details but apparently the judge had misgivings about the procedure so here we are
A trustee's responsibility is to creditors. While directing the disposition of assets, a trustee may judge that a secondary offer better serves the creditors.
In this case, the creditors are the Sandy Hook families who were wronged by Jones. It is my understanding that they had a hand in The Onion's offer. I suspect they signaled a desire for this sale to the trustee - but that is just a guess.
source:prepped personal bankruptcy cases for a couple of years
Thanks. Something I wish the reporting would note is how common this kind of thing is. Is it normal, and do the results change often/ever with these reviews? Questions that would be good for an AP journalist to look into when they know what conspiracy-minded people watching a case like this will assume.
I can't fault a judge for wanting to make sure everything is copasetic with the kind of numbers and personalities involved.
I don't want to link to paywalled sources, but yes, multiple outlets are reporting that the sale has been halted until next week to ensure that the process was fair.
Truly a great piece of satirical writing on The Onion. Just one example:
> With a shrewd mix of delusional paranoia and dubious anti-aging nutrition hacks, they strive to make life both scarier and longer for everyone, a commendable goal.
"They are a true unicorn, capable of simultaneously inspiring public support for billionaires and stoking outrage at an inept federal state that can assassinate JFK but can’t even put a man on the Moon."
Founded in 1999 on the heels of the Satanic “panic” and growing steadily ever since, InfoWars has distinguished itself as an invaluable tool for brainwashing and controlling the masses. With a shrewd mix of delusional paranoia and dubious anti-aging nutrition hacks, they strive to make life both scarier and longer for everyone, a commendable goal. They are a true unicorn, capable of simultaneously inspiring public support for billionaires and stoking outrage at an inept federal state that can assassinate JFK but can’t even put a man on the Moon.
> Somewhat ironic since The Onion could be brought down in the same way by defamation lawsuits.
Unlikely.
It's worth remembering that Jones was never actually tried for defamation. He instead received a default judgment. In the US, both sides of a civil case have the right to a fair and speedy trial. If there's delays, you had better have a good reason for them and they need to fit the rules of procedure.
Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, more-or-less refused to participate in the trial. The Knowledge Fight podcast has some episodes dealing with the discovery and deposition process for the suits, with actual deposition audio. I'm not a lawyer but it was absolutely brutal to listen to how ill-prepared Jones, his employees, and his representatives were. They were submitting Wikipedia articles about false flags as evidence, had a comprehensive background check on one of the parents that was in FSS records that no one could seem to explain the presence of, and generally didn't comply with other discovery requests.
The end result of this is that his life's work has been reduced to a satire and he is likely financially hobbled for the rest of his life.
For The Onion to have the same fate, they would have to basically disregard every single common-sense rule regarding what you should do when you're sued.
Jones' lawyers at one point forwarded a full phone dump of Jones' phone by accident to opposing council. They of course notified Jones' lawyers immediately to ask if this was a mistake that they should delete/disregard, as was their right.
Jones' lawyers promptly ignored this, or didn't understand what was going on, resulting it becoming fair game after X days had passed.
This goody bag of text messages and pictures contradicted several points of Jones' defence regarding who he was communicating with and a bunch of incriminating evidence that wasn't produced during discovery.
That was my understanding of that episode, I may have misunderstood parts of it.
Oh, and they revealed this when Jones was on the stand, and it is available to view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC9RiRUF21A
Legal Eagle (among many others I suspect - that's just the channel I tend to follow for pop legal) did a breakdown of that clip explaining what was going on for the layperson: https://youtu.be/x-QcbOphxYs
I wonder if attorneys have any liability at all. Granted, lawyers do not provide any guarantees, and I usually tend to be more forgiving of genuine fuckups, but this seems a bit too much. The very least you expect from a hired lawyer is not to single-handedly destroy all your defense.
IANAL, but I'd also imagine there's a difference between clear satire and something being presented as the truth. Additionally, The Onion generally goes after public figures while Infowars, in this case, was targeting private individuals. Not sure how either of these have bearing in the legal sense, but could be important factors.
Of course, in a politicized legal context, these points may not matter since legal action could simply be an endurance trial.
>>I'd also imagine there's a difference between clear satire and something being presented as the truth.
There is, and the 1st amendment's coverage of Parody/Satire is very well documented. The Onion has always made it clear that it's fake news, Infowars fought tooth and nail to say they're allowed to say their "truth" even if it's harmful lies. When you can prove that someone believes the damaging bullshit they're saying (not always easy!) they get their dick kicked in.
To your other point, "a well-financed bad actor could ruin any business with enough SLAPP lawsuits" falls away because anti-SLAPP laws exist and award damages if you push too hard.
Do perfectly good people get ruined through litigation? Sure. Is it the epidemic that grifters trying to sway public opinion in their favor make it out to be? Highly unlikely.
A lot of jurisdictions have anti-SLAPP lawsuits, but not all. I think Logan Paul is trying to sue YouTuber Coffeezilla in a district that doesn't have anti-SLAPP protections with the express intent of bankrupting him.
Fair enough. I didn't know it was a walkover in the end. And it is not really surprising there was no sane defence.
I believe Info Wars etc becoming big is pretty much a symptom rather than the problem. And it has escalated lately. I fear that they will be used as excuses for getting at others.
> I believe Info Wars etc becoming big is pretty much a symptom rather than the problem
I believe the problem is how incredibly easy it is to both disseminate and consume utter bullshit. You're no longer that weird loner in town. You go online and can find hundreds and thousands of people who agree with you. Why would you go find people that challenge your views, when you can get those dopamine highs from people who love everything you say?
Get pushback from people in your life? Cut them out. They don't get you, and they're just hating.
The worst part? It's self-sustaining. Humans are really bad about going against a group. So much of our social behavior is around what others do, and the more we find out about others believing XYZ, we'll start to believe it ourselves. Unless they're from a different group, in which case it is anathema.
Combine those 2 things and you get these people who basically live in separate worlds. And social media/internet enables that.
I think there is a three fold problem of the mental health crisis, decreased social trust (broken communities etc) and algorithmic feeds.
I don't know if Alex Jones is mentally ill or pretends to be. His targeting seems suspiciously self-aware and lame compared to how it usually sounds when people wander down that path.
But I guess most of his viewership is. But they existed on the internets in the beginning too. Plenty of them. Maybe the recommendation engines bring more people into the "self-sustaining" circle, than would be otherwise?
I think what has changed is mainly that there are more 'leaders'. I might have had the wrong conception of what it was like earlier, but apart from Alex Jones and the lizard guy (David Ike?) it didn't seem to be that many.
Something has changed. There are so many lunatic "influencers" nowadays that keep getting pushed to the top. Earlier you had to get out of your way to stumble upon them.
> Why would you go find people that challenge your views
Obviously in some kind of minority, but I love having my views challenged. It’s how I grow. I want people to argue with me, though ideally, respectfully.
Good! It should be. Alex Jones is a ghoul making money from dead school shooting victims. Anything that embarrasses him is entitled to as much glee as it wants.
No, I don’t. Those situations aren’t remotely comparable. I suspect you already know this but are using the Sandy Hook victims as a jumping off point to discuss something unrelated. Please don’t do that.
Then make a full argument, not just implying that "making money from dead school shooting victims" is somehow immoral. Every newspaper does just that! Very low quality comment, not worthy of HN (but of course useful for woke virtue signalling about "how bad is Alex Jones").
I can't imagine a more valid use for defamation laws than to prevent someone from knowingly and repeatedly causing death threats and other harassment to be directed at parents whose children have been murdered. After being sued, Jones completely failed to defend himself in any meaningful way and lost the suit by default. I honestly have no idea which part of this chain of events you object to. People should be free to send mobs after parents grieving an unimaginable tragedy? Morons who get sued should win by default?
I think the opposite precent would be worse. Regulating your tone around anyone with even a mediocum of power for fear of repercussion is part of the reason we're in the situation we face today.
He inspired the harassment. It was obvious to everyone, Jones included, that his actions were resulting in grieving parents being harassed and he did not change his actions. At some point people should be held responsible for the actions they know they are inspiring in others.
> Funny how quick "he harassed them" turns into "he inspired the harassment"
Yes, it's called a "clarification". OP misspoke, I clarified. If there are any other language features we can expand upon in this thread now is as good a time as any, I suppose.
> for which there is no legal precedent anywhere, ever.
May I introduce you to the concept of "incitement"? Not on the law books in Texas so Jones wasn't tried for it but let's not pretend it doesn't exist as a concept "anywhere, ever".
"Someone harassed someone" and "someone else drew inspiration to harass someone from remarks" are wildly different things.
"hurr durr someone misspoke", lol no -- those are wildly different thing and someone just got called out for posting total horse shit.
> May I introduce you to the concept of "incitement"?
Show me a single video clip where a sane and sober person could construe one of Alex's remarks to be "incitement". Pro tip: you CAN'T. We already know you fucking can't.
The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard but as a social contract. If someone does not abide the terms of mutual tolerance, then they are not covered by the contract. By definition intolerant people do not follow the rules so they are no longer covered and should not be tolerated.
I think it's actually closer to "terrorists should go to prison". Terrorists and other criminals have broken a social contract, and a level of punishment that some approximation of society deems to be acceptable is extracted from the terrorists. This doesn't mean that terrorists don't/shouldn't have some rights. Similarly, thinking about tolerance as a social contract doesn't require stripping anyone who violates this contract of all of their rights.
FWIW I don't actually have a problem with Jones specifically getting in trouble over defamation after getting his day in court. What I have a problem with is the broad notion that it's generally okay to "not tolerate the intolerant" to the point of forcibly suppressing them. The paradox of tolerance is not really a paradox when we're talking about intolerant speech.
I'm kind of worried about society deciding which speech is "intolerant", so I'm not completely on board with the idea of treating tolerance as a social contract. That being said, if we could stop a genocide merely by suppressing people's speech, I feel like that would probably be a worthwhile thing to do. That is to say, it feels like the least bad way to prevent a genocide.
Again, figuring out which speech is worth suppressing is a whole other can of worms.
EDIT: note that Jones did have his speech suppressed, and this was done because his speech was causing people to make death threats against the sandy hook parents. I feel like we could classify Jones's speech as intolerant against sandy hook parents, and the same logic applies as for any other type of intolerant speech.
Indeed. And one of the wonders of this is that anyone can determine that you have not abided by the terms. Even Stalin’s Russia was tolerant. It merely deemed many people to not abide by the terms of mutual tolerance.
Look, I'm a nix fan and a former SRE which seems to be a similar background to you. I obviously don't have details but I think it's clear you're not in a good headspace, if you can, would you consider taking a short break and going for a walk or something? HN will still be here.
Honest question: what threats did Jones make against them? I understood that he claimed it was a hoax/conspiracy, not that he had made any threats. Not even sure how he could make threats against people he didn't believe were real.
I think that's a very different statement from "God, I hate that stupid priest. He's so meddlesome." Criticizing people should not count as incitement in a liberal society- consider whether people who told an audience that Trump was a fascist should be held accountable for the assassination attempts. This is defamation.
A court already determined he is guilty. If he thought he was innocent, he had the opportunity to present any defense he wanted. Whether or not he is at fault isn't a point of discussion because it's already been determined for a fact.
Yes, he is guilty. But he's guilty of defamation, not incitement. It is an important distinction because "I thought that was true" is a defense in a defamation case, but not in incitement- you can't say "the pope is catholic, go kill him now", regardless of whether he is actually catholic.
"He didn't present a defense therefore it has been determined for a fact that he is guilty" is not especially sound. You'd have to concede the existence of witches on the absurd end, and that everyone who makes a plea deal is guilty on the more rational end. He's guilty because he publicly made harmful defamatory statements that he privately did not believe, both of which are made clear by evidence.
>You’ve got parents laughing — ‘hahaha’ — and then they walk over to the camera and go ‘boo hoo hoo,’ and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? I mean, they think we’re so dumb.”
Re double standards on Trump, I think people are ok with criticizing power hungry politicians, less so with parents who have had their kids killed.
The Jones case was a civil case for damages. He's not going to prison or anything - just losing some assets. Trump is free to sue people who've implied he's a nazi (maybe he could start with JD) but I don't know how sympathetic a jury would be.
We're not discussing the case generally. We're asking if the assertion that he THREATENED anyone, holds water. So far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence, that he has.
Whatever you think about the case, it should be decided with factual statements, not emotional manipulative accusations that bend the truth.
>To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages
So probably no in that case as there was no significant damage. Sandy Hook was different in that there were ongoing threats and harassment for years.
A single person reacting that way is unlikely to make the speaker liable, but when a large crowd reacts the same way and the speaker does not make attempts to defuse the situation, then liability should be assigned.
So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not suggesting you’re wrong or right, but your approach places a novel legal burden on observers, and thus detaches it from actors, where the responsibility currently lies.
> So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries?
Not at all - I'm saying the liability should go in the opposite direction. If worldstar fight videos incite lots of people to start fighting in the streets, then worldstar should be partially responsible unless they take actions to distance themselves from their viewers' actions.
With all that typing, you could have answered the actual question. As far as I know, there were no threats made by Alex Jones. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know.
In the US, the truth is a strong and approved defense against defamation. If you are for some reason terrified of defamation lawsuits in the one nation with the highest bar required to prove defamation, you can avoid any possible loss by simply not lying.
Er... the Onion is satire. Satire is not defamation because no one with any sense thinks it's true. InfoWars was not satire. Rather, it constantly lied.
You have to step extremely far over the line to be brought down by such a lawsuit, particularly if you have money to spend on legal defense (as Jones did previously, or the Onion does today). Jones went over that line one time too many, in a country where a lot of people strongly dislike him. It's like being Martin Shkreli, the system* is going to keep targeting you and eventually get you (entirely warranted) on one of your legal infractions. The more you're a jerk and stick your head up prominently, the more you're going to draw counter attacks to your behavior by the varied masses.
* the system referring to the vast combination of peoples: politicians, legal, monied interests, lobbyists, news media, corporations, journalists, agitators, whatever, et al
The funniest thing would be to keep running the site as-is but swap out the insanity for stuff that reads like insanity but is legit or morally sound. The audience might not notice, and could (IMHO) easily be duped into supporting good causes!
The core idea of satire, which is often missed in supposedly satirical works is that you should not only make fun of the thing you don't believe, but you should also explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it.
For example everybody knows Swift's Modest Proposal does not seriously intend that the problems in Ireland ought to be fixed by literally eating children, but if you read it, the proposal also very clearly explains what should be done, in the form of taxation of the wealthy absentee landlords (many of them English) for example - it just couches all these boring but entirely reasonable steps as ludicrous and easily dismissed while insisting that eating babies is a good idea.
> The core idea of satire, which is often missed in supposedly satirical works is that you should not only make fun of the thing you don't believe, but you should also explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it.
I often suggest that satire is a dangerous double edged sword and not a good primary vehicle for positive change. Part of your audience will understand it's satire, but a significant part maybe even a majority, might take is as genuine or worse come to embrace/support the satirized.
I believe we ask and expect too much of satire which relies heavily on hypocrisy and shame, two concepts that no longer carry the same weight.
Examples: South Park, The Colbert Report, SNL, The Onion
> Allow yourself to find poor execution of agreeable messages distasteful. Allow yourself to enjoy good execution of messages you disagree with.
This makes sense. If you find yourself understanding and judging messages based simply off of their merits then you have failed to insert an arbitrary aesthetic filter into your cognitive process. The wisest sages know to value style over substance
One could say 'the wisest sages know to value style and substance'
Or even: 'the wisest sages know that incorrect results can be based on some sound thinking and some muddled thinking, and correct results can be derived by tortuous thinking'
Or maybe: 'the wisest sages know that some things are neither objectively true nor objectively false, and can appreciate good arguments for positions they disagree with'
I'm not sure I agree with you (your parent could be taken to simply mean, appreciate good-faith arguments, even if you disagree with them), but I appreciate your contextual use of satire.
You cannot “explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it” without blurring the line between propaganda and art. That is true of both the best art and propaganda. If someone disagrees with the message, or coöpts it, it’s propaganda.
> The art you like is merely the propaganda which you do not question.
I like this thought because it can be directly refuted by Cotton Eye Joe by Rednex — a highly popular piece of art that does nothing but present the audience with questions to ponder.
I disagree on the point that art is propaganda, but I can't point out almost all art contains a propaganda of some kind.
Monet's Water Lilies influences common viewers to find a beauty and romanticism in simple nature.
Long exposure to Monet will in general make people gaze more appreciatively at trees every now and then.
Propaganda doesn't inherently mean bad or political. Healthy lifestyle propaganda is actually a good thing, for example (also the current healthy lifestyle propaganda seems poorly executed. I much prefer the 60s american, european and soviet versions of it).
the ephemeral beauty i strive constantly to capture, studying these same details in this same garden across the infinitely variable day, this honest and perfect imperfection that i'm famous for revealing and sharing with the world, is within every moment of every life and every human being.
(significantly he made a gift of these paintings to the french state as a war memorial)
Chairmansteve didn’t ask about theoretical paintings of watermelons that you have imagined though, he asked about Water Lilies by Monet, which is art that famously exists and is liked by many, many real people.
If your point is “all art is propaganda aside from art that exists and must be replaced piece-by-piece with hypothetical counterparts in my head to support this conjecture” you could have just written that. Though “some art is propaganda and some is not” is less profound sounding than “all art is propaganda”
I definitely see the problems you are pointing out, but ultimately these calls from you and gp to forms of responsibility or to be a "vehicle for positive change" of satirical or otherwise funny things leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I just sometimes want things to be cathartic, I don't really care if they are pushing the needle of the world's ills. I want to be able to laugh and not necessarily be a better person for it! There has got to be some space for that too, right?
And ok, if there is some committee somewhere to dictate that all satire must be "responsible", must follow its founding Swiftian maxim, then fine, we don't have to call it that. But whatever it is can still be good, can help those find a little fun in an absurd world. We should care as much about the simply depressed people as we do the possibly confused or evil.
I don't think there's a committee, I'm pretty sure I do not have veto over online comedy. Think of this as a pointed criticism of how things could be better, not as a tearing down of what is good. And you don't need to be made a better person per se, but my argument is that the work should try to offer that, not that you must accept it when offered.
I don't need to use a toilet on a train most of the time, but I think long distance trains obviously should all have toilets - even if I didn't need one this trip.
In larger works the other side of the coin needn't be in the next paragraph. When I read Private Eye for example the cover headline "MAN IN HAT SITS ON CHAIR" isn't doing anything beyond poking fun at the King (the crown is just a hat, the throne is just a chair) but the magazine overall funds a lot of serious investigative journalism and sheds light on important issues. Years before a TV drama made it into a government scandal problems with Horizon and getting justice for those wrongly convicted were extensively discussed in the Eye for example.
been shamed too many times, man. Moral failing itself became just a button people try to press in my brain. Often very dishonest people. So, welcome to moral learned helplessness, and damn the moralizers.
ALSO: thinking means changing your mind, which often exposes you to being called a hypocrite
Satire is not a tool for change. In fact the opposite as laughter sublimates the emotions that would otherwise lead to action (cf Orwell’s 1984).
However people are not always in a position to change things and satire can be a useful outlet for venting, but culturally can also be good for providing talking points.
Southpark and the Onion strike a chord with me the others less so, I think because they believe that they are agents for change.
I love John Oliver though. He follows up his rants with some sensible ideas sometimes. Not everyone’s cup of tea though for sure.
Those are all still far more positive than negative examples, even if they each spawned small contingents of people who don't get the irony. Plus, if you know that's gonna happen anyway, then steer the dumb ironic interpretations towards something equally useful - or so ridiculous it at least educates other people.
>I often suggest that satire is a dangerous double edged sword and not a good primary vehicle for positive change.
When I write with the intent of my words being read at face value I get downvoted, flagged or my post get sent into the void by some AI depending on platform.
I've never read this definition from any historical author or famous literary critic. I think you made this up yourself from first principles-- am I right on that?
In any case, this definition would make a special case out of Animal Farm which is probably the most famous satire. I cringe imagining Orwell have one of the animals "dismiss" his preferred theoretical vision of good governance as a wink to the audience. I don't even think Orwell presumed to know what that would look like.
The original idea of satire was to make fun of unjust leaders. It doesn’t have to be as sophisticated as swift at all. It just has to strike a chord (originally, literally) with the audience.
Satire requires a good deal of intelligence and education to both write and consume. Without those two inputs, satire is a propaganda.
When you take a satirical concept and ratchet up the absurdity such that only ignorant (willfully or otherwise) people believe it, the result can be a powerful influence over them. Conspiracy theories often use this approach, as do talking heads on some networks.
Think about how early Stephen Colbert skits often comprised of him acting like Bill O'Reilly; not saying funny things in the style of O'Reilly, but merely imitating him. The difference between satire and propaganda is often packaging and audience.
For another example, you can look at posts of people who read Onion articles without realizing they are satire. These people are often pissed off, so much so that they share a 3 year old article on social media to spread the word.
Yep. Insert little-known stories that are documented conspiracies that aren't hypotheticals similar to the fine content of DamnInteresting. Be sure to use lots of graphics and editoralizing/clickbait headlines.
Luckily my conscience is clean because I discovered the existence of that place not from AJ but by studying the North Pacific Coast Railroad, which used to go directly to The Grove in Sonoma:
I think it's interesting that so many governmental and corporate leaders meet up (or maybe met up? in the 20th Century) to talk shop outside the view of the public eye. It's relevant to anyone who wants to study Bay Area history or the history of World War Ⅱ technologies. For example, the Manhattan Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-1_Executive_Committee#/media...
> “The September 1942 meeting [of the S-1 Executive Committee] was held at Bohemian Grove. Nichols and Major Thomas T. Crenshaw, Jr., attended, along with physicist Robert Oppenheimer. This meeting resolved most of the outstanding issues confronting the [Manhattan] project, but [Vannevar] Bush and [James B.] Conant felt that the time had now come for the Army to take over the project, something that had already been approved by the president on June 17, 1942. After some discussion, it was decided that [Leslie R.] Groves, who would be promoted to the rank of brigadier general, would become the director of the Manhattan Project on September 23, 1942. He would be answerable to the Military Policy Committee (MPC), which would consist of Styer, Bush (with Conant as his alternate) and Rear Admiral William R. Purnell.”
keep running the site as-is but swap out the insanity for stuff that reads like insanity but is legit or morally sound.
Sounds like that's sort of what's happening:
"The publication plans to reintroduce Infowars in January as a parody of itself, mocking “weird internet personalities” like Mr. Jones who traffic in misinformation and health supplements, Ben Collins, the chief executive of The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, said in an interview."
> The audience might not notice, and could (IMHO) easily be duped into supporting good causes!
What a deranged fantasy this is and yet how often it shows up. The audience will notice. Those who don't and eventually discover your duplicity will never forgive you for it. What you propose is disgusting and amoral, as it has no value, and is designed to mollify yourself by bulling people you clearly perceive as being beneath you.
It's amoral (sic) to improve the accuracy of a journalistic publication you've purchased? I'm struggling to find a more charitable way to interpret your statement.
Or is just the usage of the word "duped"? Some people are more interested in sensational rhetoric than more even-keeled reporting. It's unfortunate that they're currently mostly taken advantage of by hucksters. I think the creation of publications genuinely interested in facts but that use more appealing rhetoric is important to preserving journalism as an institution.
Interesting. They should.. but Bksy is bouncing between 15 to 133 new users per second at the moment, and they are on bare metal. There is major service degradation at the moment. Pour one out for their team.
They are too terminally online to warrant deleting accounts. I, already, can see the 'I'm going to Bluesky!!!!!' crowd returning and definitely not in single digit numbers.
I'm not from the US so naturally they've confused me in the past.
more than once I caught myself clicking on a shared headline of theirs, so I've added them to my DNS blocklist to avoid giving them clicks, decades ago.
my problem is not with their obviously ridiculous headlines, but the ones that hit the grey area, where it's as much good humor as a screamer is good horror.
The thing is the onion is pretty much always ridiculous, so if some of them are in a "gray area" I think that moreso speaks to the overall climate or your own personal biases.
> Had a crazy theory that a school shooting was fake.
This is absolutely not what happened. Jones is a grifter, and was never a journalist. He had no journalistic aspirations, and peddled exclusively in inane conspiracy theories either crafted personally or adopted selectively to inspire a constant state of fear and paranoia in a particular type of vulnerable person while aggressively channeling their anxieties into purchases of his prepper gear and phony health supplement business. This is a rare case of such a fraudster managing to accrue enough ire and attention that legal charges stuck and sunk him for the harm caused by one of his many careless lies. There are many like him who continue on with much the same strategy, some of whom have gained enough power and influence through their actions that they are now effectively untouchable by the legal system.
I doubt that the SH families will receive the kind of money they could have had if they accepted Jones' original offer. Their lawyers made it clear they were in it not for their clients' interest but for their own political agenda.
I looked it up, but I can't find any article claiming the judge had made a ruling yet. The most recent news I can find [1] simply states that the auction loser is making a legal challenge, and that a hearing will happen in the future (the date scheduled at the last hearing was nov. 25th). Do you have a reputable news source for that claim?
Well they asked for money, not "fixing the issue", which is not enforceable anyway without violating the 1st so that's not even a power the court has. Alex Jones will still be able to speak and profit from it, just not under the Infowars brand.
Lawyers file cases they can win to establish legal precedent.
The 1st amendment doesn't protect all forms of speech. Shouting Fire in a theater, sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment.
… he was sued for defamation[1], which is sort in line with the parent's point that the 1A doesn't grant you unfettered immunity to the consequences of your speech.
AIUI, the cases in total have awarded nearly $2B cumulative to the plaintiffs. That's a pretty hefty sum. According to Wikipedia, most of it hasn't been paid by Jones. ("By the end of the summer of 2023, Jones had paid nothing to the families" [for $1.5B of the cumulative penalties, 1])
> This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
(IANAL.) Partially overturned. And the existing jurisprudence still seems to say that like the above, you'd be held accountable for your actions. It isn't going to be "you can't say that", it would be something like "your actions (shouting fire, falsely) caused a stampede, and people were trampled, and you're now charged with manslaughter". (The Wikipedia article goes into this, too.)
I was more referring to his whole demographic mistakenly believing the first amendment should mean you get to be a kook or an asshole with no consequences.
And he’s definitely experiencing consequences.
Also on the Sandy Hook case, Remington settled out of court, which prevents setting precedent on culpability in gun violence.
Jones is not worth $1B. He's barely worth a million with the lawsuits and legal costs; thus the bankruptcy. He offered them about $100M over 20 years or something like that but the SH families lawyers refused.
I've watched the trial, the SH lawyers are not loyal to the victims and families.
Right, the intention of the suit was to personally harm Jones as retribution for the immeasurable harm he has caused them.
They don't need money, I'm sure they have enough. They denied his money because that isn't the point - they want to mock him.
And, I fully support them. They're in a unique position and frankly I'm very impressed at their restraint in choosing the legal system over violence. If I were Jones, I would consider myself very lucky.
> Their intention was to silence him. Literally what they said; which is illegal.
No, defamation is illegal. Me suing you for lying and directly causing me financial harm is not illegal.
> These are normal people, what are you talking about?
They've gotten a lot of money on account of the fact their families were victims of a tragedy. I'm assuming they don't need more money because they literally turned down a few hundred thousand dollars from Jones.
Also, this "what are you talking about?" BS needs to stop. You know what I'm talking about, or at least you can assume. Don't pretend like what I'm saying is so outrageous and unbelievable. You can respond without being annoying, please and thank you.
> "That's not impressive, that's what the vast majority of people do."
The vast majority of people don’t have to endure someone with an audience of millions falsely claiming their murdered children were part of a government conspiracy. Under those circumstances, many might be driven to retaliate violently. It’s a testament to these individuals' strength and restraint that they pursued justice through the legal system instead.
Life is not a movie. People are boring, want to avoid trouble as much as possible and don't even seriously consider the use of violence even when they are deeply hurt. The father who kills his kids' rapist? Very very rare.
Did the original offer include shutting down Infowars? Of not I expect many of them feel they got plenty more that whatever cash Jones was offering. There is more to this life than money.
And yet seeing the case through to the end instead of taking the first offer has seen Infowars taken from Alex Jones. I don't speak for the families, but if I were in their shoes that would be far more valuable to me than maximizing my payout.
Alex Jones just created a new company and be shielded by Texas very protective laws against civil damages. So they accomplished nothing and will get barely nothing after legal costs.
Those Texas laws would only shield him in Texas courts. He can try to use a choice of forum clause in his terms of service to force lawsuits to take place in Texas but that only works with people who are subject to those terms of service.
Unless Jones manages to limit himself to telling lies about people who use his new company he will be open to lawsuits outside of Texas.
The NPR article conveys that this was more than just a very clever stunt
> "The Connecticut families agreed to forgo a portion of their recovery to increase the overall value of The Onion's bid, enabling its success," according to their lawyers. ... Jones was hoping a bidder ideologically aligned with him would have bought Infowars and hired him back to keep doing his show.
Yeah, this seems like a clear-cut "We want justice, not money" decision. We don't know how much the families gave up (could be a little, could be significant), but whatever it was was the difference between Infowars remaining what it is or utterly destroying Infowars' credibility.
Because now the Wikipedia entry is going to say "parody site" at the top.
> We don't know how much the families gave up (could be a little, could be significant)
It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes but as a parent I can imagine the money not playing an important factor at all in this. Money would hopefully be the least of my worries.
Jones owes them $1.5 billion. They're never going to see most of that judgement. They're likely giving up money they were never going to receive anyway.
My hunch is that the judge and everyone involved knows that they aren't going to get anything substantial from Jones, which is why they allowed them to use money they are owed from the judgement as part of the bid. It allows them to get something of value out of the ruling (or at least take something of value from Jones).
> They're likely giving up money they were never going to receive anyway.
They're giving up money that a higher bidder would have paid for infowars. Essentially the difference between The Onion's bid, and the bid of whoever else would buy.
They mean this is what _in practice_ they give up. In theory they can give up more, but this is the actual money difference from what they would have gotten otherwise in reality.
Alex Jones response: https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1857058831135645739