4 ms·

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 th

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. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5189399/alex-jones-auction-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5189399/alex-jones-auct...

oddevan 2y ago
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.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  LOL, it's already being updated... "InfoWars was an American far-right[2] conspiracy theory[3] and fake news website[1] created by Alex Jones.[36][37] It was founded in 1999, and operated under Free Speech Systems LLC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars
- barbazoo 2y ago
  > 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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - superfrank 2y ago
    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).
    - chippiewill 2y ago
      > 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.
      - hackernewds 2y ago
        That is not going to be permitted by the judge or other bidders
        freehorse 2y ago
        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.
    - coderjames 2y ago
      The judge in the case put the brakes on the sale after it was revealed that the bankruptcy trustee did not accept the highest bid, and instead allowed the Sandy Hook families to 'assist' by pledging their massive judgement towards the auction. It isn't reasonable to pledge money they didn't have because the families aren't the only creditors of the estate. The rest of the creditors get a lower recovery if the assets are "sold" for the price of one group reducing their claim.
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    I'm a parent. I've woken up in a panic just because I had a bad dream that something bad happened to my kid. If I were one of the Sandy Hook families, I don't know if anything in life would ever bring me true joy again. But contributing to this would make me smile a little.
- hackernewds 2y ago
  It seems as if a win. However Alex Jones can just spin up another website and platform. It's the Internet, not a sandwich shop
mikeryan 2y ago
The "Global Tetrahedron" site already has an Infowars Web 1.0 slant, the Everytown for Gun Safety ads are great. https://global-tetrahedron.com/ https://global-tetrahedron.com/
- mycall 2y ago
  Have it look like the year 2000 infowars website. https://web.archive.org/web/20000229143934/http://www.infowars.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20000229143934/http://www.infowa...
sverhagen 2y ago
>bought Infowars and hired him back to keep doing his show So, if any, where's the value? In InfoWars, or with Jones? I.e., can't he just go into a new venture, or go onto someone's payroll?
- PaulRobinson 2y ago
  Making life harder for Alex Jones, making him start again with nothing, is quite a satisfying thing to do for many counter-parties here.
  - hackernewds 2y ago
    What is hard? He can spin up a new YouTube channel in a day
mvelbaum 2y ago
This is actually one of the dumbest stunts I'd ever seen. InfoWars is nothing without Alex Jones. They've wasted all their money since Alex will start a new project and his viewership will move.
- bcdtttt 2y ago
  Oh no, far to the contrary, this is funny as hell. The fact that Alex Jones isn't there makes it even funnier. And they got all of the stuff and the brands. The chemical brands, the infowars brands, all of it.
  - mvelbaum 2y ago
    First of all, a judge just overturned this thing, so I hope you're still laughing. Secondly, if they really paid money for this, they're idiots because InfoWars is meaningless without Alex. He will just start "The Alex Jones Network" and recapture his audience. All that said, I see that I got downvoted by woke idiots even though I don't even watch Alex Jones.
    - trolan 2y ago
      It has been paused based on normal steps in bankruptcy proceedings[0]. > A court hearing is typically held after a bankruptcy auction to finalize the winning bids and sales, and to hear any objections, so the process in Jones's case hasn't strayed far from the usual — yet. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/onion-infowars-court-1.7385221 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/onion-infowars-court-1.7385221 Also try and cut out the name calling, especially when you're incorrect.
      - mvelbaum 2y ago
        When it comes to trusting the fake news outlet CBC or Alex Jones, I'd go with Jones on this one: https://x.com/glennbeck/status/1857529776866574769 https://x.com/glennbeck/status/1857529776866574769

oddevan 2y ago

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.

qingcharles 2y ago
LOL, it's already being updated... "InfoWars was an American far-right[2] conspiracy theory[3] and fake news website[1] created by Alex Jones.[36][37] It was founded in 1999, and operated under Free Speech Systems LLC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars
barbazoo 2y ago
> 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- superfrank 2y ago
  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).
  - chippiewill 2y ago
    > 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.
    - hackernewds 2y ago
      That is not going to be permitted by the judge or other bidders
      - freehorse 2y ago
        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.
  - coderjames 2y ago
    The judge in the case put the brakes on the sale after it was revealed that the bankruptcy trustee did not accept the highest bid, and instead allowed the Sandy Hook families to 'assist' by pledging their massive judgement towards the auction. It isn't reasonable to pledge money they didn't have because the families aren't the only creditors of the estate. The rest of the creditors get a lower recovery if the assets are "sold" for the price of one group reducing their claim.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  I'm a parent. I've woken up in a panic just because I had a bad dream that something bad happened to my kid. If I were one of the Sandy Hook families, I don't know if anything in life would ever bring me true joy again. But contributing to this would make me smile a little.
hackernewds 2y ago
It seems as if a win. However Alex Jones can just spin up another website and platform. It's the Internet, not a sandwich shop

mikeryan 2y ago

The "Global Tetrahedron" site already has an Infowars Web 1.0 slant, the Everytown for Gun Safety ads are great. https://global-tetrahedron.com/ https://global-tetrahedron.com/

mycall 2y ago
Have it look like the year 2000 infowars website. https://web.archive.org/web/20000229143934/http://www.infowars.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20000229143934/http://www.infowa...

sverhagen 2y ago

>bought Infowars and hired him back to keep doing his show So, if any, where's the value? In InfoWars, or with Jones? I.e., can't he just go into a new venture, or go onto someone's payroll?

PaulRobinson 2y ago
Making life harder for Alex Jones, making him start again with nothing, is quite a satisfying thing to do for many counter-parties here.
- hackernewds 2y ago
  What is hard? He can spin up a new YouTube channel in a day

mvelbaum 2y ago

This is actually one of the dumbest stunts I'd ever seen. InfoWars is nothing without Alex Jones. They've wasted all their money since Alex will start a new project and his viewership will move.

bcdtttt 2y ago
Oh no, far to the contrary, this is funny as hell. The fact that Alex Jones isn't there makes it even funnier. And they got all of the stuff and the brands. The chemical brands, the infowars brands, all of it.
- mvelbaum 2y ago
  First of all, a judge just overturned this thing, so I hope you're still laughing. Secondly, if they really paid money for this, they're idiots because InfoWars is meaningless without Alex. He will just start "The Alex Jones Network" and recapture his audience. All that said, I see that I got downvoted by woke idiots even though I don't even watch Alex Jones.
  - trolan 2y ago
    It has been paused based on normal steps in bankruptcy proceedings[0]. > A court hearing is typically held after a bankruptcy auction to finalize the winning bids and sales, and to hear any objections, so the process in Jones's case hasn't strayed far from the usual — yet. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/onion-infowars-court-1.7385221 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/onion-infowars-court-1.7385221 Also try and cut out the name calling, especially when you're incorrect.
    - mvelbaum 2y ago
      When it comes to trusting the fake news outlet CBC or Alex Jones, I'd go with Jones on this one: https://x.com/glennbeck/status/1857529776866574769 https://x.com/glennbeck/status/1857529776866574769