46 ms·
Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
- loeg 2y agohttps://archive.is/hPq1e https://archive.is/hPq1e
- orionblastar 2y agoIt only archived part of the article. They want a logged-in user to avoid the paywall.
- consumer451 2y agoFrom Bluesky's Gift Link feed: [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/business/media/the-onion-infowars-alex-jones.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gk4.peLD.H_gFFw40BcKq&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/business/media/the-onion-... [0] https://bsky.app/profile/davidsacerdote.bsky.social/feed/aaaixbb5liqbu https://bsky.app/profile/davidsacerdote.bsky.social/feed/aaa...
- notpushkin 2y agoAnd just in case: apparently you can gift the articles even if you only have a free 48/72h subscription from a library, e.g. here: https://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/explore/elibrary/new-york-times-digital-edition https://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/explore/elibrary/new-y...
- alwa 2y agoIn case that one still cuts off halfway through, another snapshot is at https://archive.is/8q8m8 https://archive.is/8q8m8
- seltzered_ 2y agoStatement from The Onion (via CEO Ben Collins): https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3lcyypar33k2o https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3lcyypa...
- bsimpson 2y agoI appreciate that the tweet actually had context about what happens next: "…continue to seek a path towards purchasing…" "…back to the drawing board…" The article could have used those details. ----- [edit] They've updated the article.
- refulgentis 2y agoIt said that exact thing, but didn't need a number of tweets to say it. Advantage: article.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- weberer 2y agoAnd here's the statement from Jones: https://x.com/realalexjones/status/1866752494317003142 https://x.com/realalexjones/status/1866752494317003142
- crossroadsguy 2y agoI must ask - does Mr Jones really sound like that - as if loud throat is getting hammered while functioning perfectly fine and loud and fast and at the same time pressing hard voice breaks, or is it some kind of voice modulation? Also, @RealAlexJones says "EXCLUSIVE: Alex Jones Responds Live On Air" → is this about two separate Alex Jones, or the same Mr Jones is talking about himself in the 3rd person?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- weberer 2y agoThat's just the title of the video. That's why the first letter of each word is capitalized.
- 2y ago
- polygot 2y agohttps://archive.is/8q8m8 https://archive.is/8q8m8
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThis is probably the correct decision. Alex Jones's vitamin company offered 2x more cash, and in the case of a bankruptcy, cash completely trumps any notion of "giving up debt." Especially when the debt being settled is astronomically large and you are giving up a very small portion of it ($7 million out of $1.5 billion). The other creditors are far better off getting more cash, and those $7 million of claims are worth way less than one cent per dollar. Additionally, the auction here was run farcically, and basically seemed designed to create an outcome where the onion gets to buy this website for no money.
- alwa 2y agoIsn't it a little strange, though, that the system notionally decided that the families are owed an enormous amount of economic power as compensation for the nasty behavior of Alex Jones' media company, but at the same time it's obliging them not to use that economic power to prevent the sale of the media company to a "new owner" still affiliated with an unrepentant Alex Jones, who will undoubtedly continue the nasty behavior? Just in order to get cash to compensate them at pennies on the dollar for his previous round of nasty behavior? I have to say, just as a matter of gut instinct, it sure feels like when the court finds that Alex Jones damaged people—at a value orders of magnitude beyond that of his company—those people should be allowed to decide that, to them, there's value in snuffing out his ill-behaving company altogether. Is the issue that there are other creditors who are unhappy with this, who would get paid before the aggrieved families' damages would? The lawyers seem to be fine with it, as they're the ones advocating for this plan...
- acomjean 2y agoSelling to a business involved with the individual that lost in court.. It seems like a Fraudulent Conveyance to my non lawyer self (but I could be wrong) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent_conveyance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent_conveyance
- rfw300 2y agoIt's not a good outcome, but it's also not fraudulent conveyance. Principally because the proceeds of the sale go to the victims.
- mrtksn 2y ago[flagged]
- bboygravity 2y agoContext needed about why Musk blocked The Onion accounts?
- unsnap_biceps 2y agoMusk filed saying that he owns the X accounts and they aren't allowed to be sold according to the TOS. The X accounts were removed from the pending sale.
- anigbrowl 2y agoVery speech much free
- ipaddr 2y agoAll social media accounts are owned by the company and they can and do shutdown people every second of everyday. This is the least surprising. Instagram just shutdown the account of the suspected ceo killer. That person didn't break any social media rules (didn't post copyright or tell someone off or spam marketplace) but instagram has the right. I don't see anyone shocked.
- alt187 2y agoNo one is "shocked", the irony is that Musk postures as a rabid free speech advocate. It's not surprising, but it's hypocritical.
- Canada 2y agoYou can support people's right to say what they want, while also saying it's against the house rules to impersonate other people. Doesn't seem that unreasonable.
- bastawhiz 2y ago> First United American Companies The second-highest bidder was....an insurance company? Am I misunderstanding?
- ThrustVectoring 2y agoIt's a shell company made to have an acronym that sounds like "eff you AC".
- refulgentis 2y agoAC?
- willvarfar 2y agoAmerican Companies?
- habinero 2y agoNo, it's a set of straw buyers for Alex Jones.
- avs733 2y agoThe second highest bidder was Alex Jones
- dukeofdoom 2y agoWait, so you can be fined 1.5 Billion for reporting on a conspiracy theory? BTW, this is a lot more than pharmaceutical companies pay out for actually killing people. I remember watching the trial and it was the most ridiculous thing every. The defendant (Alex) wasn't allowed to say he's innocent because the judge defaulted him. Yet the prosecution was allowed to bring in all kinds of evidence of his guilt (other than him being defaulted) and present that to the jury. So in essence, you're guilty because the judge said so, and the prosecution gets to pile on about your guilt, but you can't testify to the jury counter your guilt. Yet somehow this a jury trial. The other ridiculous thing was he was defaulted for namely not showing Youtube ad revenue for his shows, after youtube deleted his channel. They also awarded an FBI agent, I guess for hurt feelings, not even related to the families. 1.5 Billion .... apparently not a political prosecution of a critic, designed to silence him by taking InfoWars off air. You know when Alex offered $55 million to settle. The lawyers somehow decided to get less by pushing for the bankruptcy.
- piva00 2y ago[flagged]
- dukeofdoom 2y agoI watched the trial...did you?
- ternnoburn 2y ago[flagged]
- piva00 2y agoYeah, I did, and if you watched then you understand why it was defaulted since Alex Jones refused to participate, was found in contempt of court for not produce materials relevant to the case, a default judgment is the punishment for not participating in the legal process. If he wanted to avoid it then he could abide by the law and be a part in his own judgment before it came to that.
- 2y ago
- jmward01 2y agoIt is clear that Jones and his relatives have moved money and assets around in order to shield them from the verdict. Now, money that should have been already given to the victims is being used to steal back the megaphone that caused harmed in the first place. The end effect will probably be even more subscribers and money for Jones which he will use with even less restraint since he knows there are no consequences. There are no words for the evil going on here. What recourse is left when the legal system is this broken?
- Vampiero 2y ago[flagged]
- wakawaka28 2y ago[flagged]
- ternnoburn 2y agoTaking the man's source of income is absolutely a way to get paid. He can work a day job like anyone else.
- wakawaka28 2y agoNo, it's not. He will not be paying that. He might have paid a smaller yet still large amount, but he's certainly not going to work in McDonalds to pay off $1 billion dollars. He has the same legal rights as anyone else to not be a debt slave.
- ternnoburn 2y ago[dead]
- Muromec 2y agoTaking away some amount of wages is very much a thing, as everyone who ever divorced can tell you. You better not ask how math works there, because it’s not fun.
- gigatexal 2y agoWhat a shame
- Clubber 2y ago[flagged]
- EdwardDiego 2y ago> I suspect the billion dollar settlement will be overturned on appeal as being excessive. Why?
- a-french-anon 2y ago[flagged]
- Clubber 2y agoYou have to prove damages.
- ceejayoz 2y agoYou don't, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages > Because they are usually paid in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, if the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious.
- Clubber 2y agoOnly 1/3 were punative and those were for attorney's fees, but yes, you still have to prove injuries in the first place. Lopez ruled that more than $1.1 billion of those verdicts, awarded for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, cannot be wiped away in bankruptcy. But he ruled that other parts of the verdicts, including $324 million in attorneys' fees that were awarded as punitive damages in the Connecticut case, could possibly be discharged. The $1B is a ridiculous number that will never get repaid and it's just to make a big emotional virtuous show. Judges aren't supposed to be emotional, judges aren't supposed to let their personal feelings affect their virdict. If it was say $15, $20, $35 million, the families might get something. It makes a mockery out of the justice system and just goes to show how unserious law is in the US today. Why not $5 trillion? Why not $50 trillion, would that be too obvious where $1 billion somehow is not? Reminds me of the trial in Idiocracy.
- zabzonk 2y agoProbably needs to be settled before Trump gets in?
- 4gotunameagain 2y agoWhy, so the outgoing government which lost the public vote can make the decision instead of the president elect ? Disclaimer, I think Trump is a buffoon, but I also think this kind of thinking is backwards.
- kubb 2y agoPresident elect shouldn’t control the courts but whatever.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Hikikomori 2y agoYou think the current president is influencing this court case?
- JSteph22 2y agoPeople posting in this thread seem to think a Trump DOJ appointed trustee would act in a way that benefits Alex Jones. Infowars has a large following and has been very supportive of Trump while being critical of Biden. The rationale for the motivation to act politically in both directions is certainly there.
- khuey 2y agoThe elected government isn't making this decision anyways, this is in a court in front of a judge (one previously appointed by the president-elect, no less).
- kubb 2y agoCan Trump pardon Jones? I thought pardons apply in criminal cases, not in civil cases like bankruptcy.
- guerrilla 2y ago[flagged]
- Der_Einzige 2y ago[flagged]
- bena 2y agoThis is kind of bullshit. The Sandy Hook families were a part of The Onion’s bid. They were clearly ok with it. The court knows it can’t sell it back to Jones or a proxy of, but this decision also allows Jones to continue as if he hadn’t sold. And I think that’s what they’re aiming for
- dhfuuvyvtt 2y ago[flagged]
- lenerdenator 2y ago… are you seriously second-guessing what makes other people happy?
- dhfuuvyvtt 2y agoWhat makes them happy and what is the best outcome for them in the long run can be different things. Did you read the article?
- MarcoZavala 2y ago[dead]
- keepamovin 2y agoBecause the auction was a scam, I guess.
- n144q 2y ago[flagged]
- pwillia7 2y agoYeah it is so dumb seeing the shady shit when it's so not needed -- reminds me of that wild Alec baldwin prosecutor
- shakna 2y agoThe deal wasn't shaky. It was an auction where there were only two potential buyers who actually rocked up. It wasn't secret, it was public. It was issued by a court, including a process where bidders had to submit offers before a deadline. [0] ThreeSixty Asset Advisors ran the process. As they often do. Tranzon Asset Advisors assisted, as they often do. There were confidentiality agreements and sealed bids... But that's the normal process for selling off assets through a court. A sealed bid is designed to avoid negotiation, and other processes more easily manipulated by bias, unconscious or otherwise. The bids are unseen between the buyers, and opened at the same time. There were a "large number" of interested parties before the deadline. However, most pulled out and did not submit a bid before the deadline. Leaving only two. Some potential bidders, like The Barbed Wire, stated that they pulled out because they simply couldn't afford the expected sale price. All of this was the exact same procedure for other forfeiture assets. The Judge did not find any wrong doing by the buyers, but rather lamented that the final sale price was too low. That's it. Not a procedural stuff up. That was followed correctly. > "I don't like second-guessing trustees," the judge said, but that is exactly what he did. > "It's clear that [U.S. bankruptcy trustee Christopher Murray] left a lot of money on the table," Lopez said, adding that he thought the process was "doomed" the moment Murray decided to cancel a live auction and call for sealed "best and final" offers instead. He simply wanted the auction to take longer. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/11/13/alex-jones-infowars-will-be-auctioned-today-to-help-pay-sandy-hook-families-15-billion-heres-what-to-know/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/11/13/alex-jone...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- theflyingelvis 2y ago[flagged]
- bdcravens 2y agoHe is being held responsible for personally defaming the Sandy Hook victims and families.
- theflyingelvis 2y agoThank you. Can you elaborate? Wouldn’t jones stating garbage like the shooting didn’t happen etc. be opinion? How were his statements defamation ? I missed where he defamed the families as I don’t listen to his shows.
- relaxing 2y ago> Wouldn’t jones stating garbage like the shooting didn’t happen etc. be opinion? Holy shit the last 8 years really have damaged our understanding of what “facts” are.
- bdcravens 2y agoIANAL, but the semantics of opinion vs fact are typically tangential to the court's determination of defamation. However, in many cases it's a matter of framing: "I think that ..." prefixing a statement can carry a lot of weight versus presenting it as a fact.
- burnished 2y agoOh won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest
- lenerdenator 2y agoJones was never technically tried for anything. He refused to participate in the trial in a meaningful manner and had a default judgment against him instead.
- mherkender 2y ago
- MarcoZavala 2y ago[dead]
- bhouston 2y agoRemember that this was made possible by the intervention of Elon Musk. I suspect he may end up buying the assets himself or someone in this circle.
- spiderfarmer 2y agoThat idea is disgusting enough for him to try.
- onemoresoop 2y agoIs that asset of any use at this point? Even onion’s bid seems like a waste of money to me
- bhouston 2y agoCould Elon or a billionaire friend of his buy it, at a slightly higher price than the Onion offered, and then employ Alex Jones as a host? InfoWars is worth nothing if not for Alex Jones right. So if you want to maximize value, you need to somehow keep him around to serve his audience.
- onemoresoop 2y agoAlex Jones owes a lot of money after the lawsuits against hi , if he was hired back at Infowars everything he made would be clawed over. Second, Alex Jobes is what his followers are interested in, if he still has any followers left. Anyone else who buys this asset will not be able to extract any value from it.
- norlygfyd 2y agoThis was not made possible by the intervention of Musk. If you're referring to the X Corp objection, this has absolutely nothing to do with that.
- wds 2y agoIf you say so.
- micromacrofoot 2y agoappointed in 2019, gee what a shocker
- amalcon 2y agoI am just some guy who doesn't actually know much about this. This being the internet, though: If I understand, it's pretty routine in real estate foreclosures for a creditor to win the auction simply by bidding the outstanding value of the debt. Thus not needing to actually come up with much or any cash. This gains the ability to use or resell the property however you want. How is one situation different from the other?
- trollbridge 2y agoBankruptcy runs by different rules than foreclosures (which is why people about to be foreclosed on often file bankruptcy). Specifically, junior creditors are protected, and everyone gets a proportionate share of the proceeds. In a foreclosure, the senior lienholder usually gets the property and the junior lienholders either get nothing or get what’s left over after the senior creditor gets whatever they were owed. I’m really not sure why the creditors in this case did a shady no bid deal… it seems they would have had an easy time buying out the junior creditors and then getting whatever they want, although I’m also not sure why anyone would want the “infowars.com” domain and a warehouse full of vitamin pills.
- JackFr 2y agoBankruptcy is something that happens to the borrower. Foreclosure is something that happens to the property.
- trollbridge 2y agoCorrect, although a foreclosure of a property will be affected if the owner of said property undergoes bankruptcy. (For private individuals, such as Mr Jones, some or all of their primary residential property is exempt from bankruptcy, and the foreclosure itself will be stayed until the bankruptcy is adjudicated, and, generally speaking, foreclosure will be stopped if they resume making mortgage payments, regardless of prior delinquencies.)
- pclmulqdq 2y ago> I’m really not sure why the creditors in this case did a shady no bid deal… it seems they would have had an easy time buying out the junior creditors and then getting whatever they want, although I’m also not sure why anyone would want the “infowars.com” domain and a warehouse full of vitamin pills. The creditors with smaller claims hate the guts of the creditors with bigger claims, and likely wouldn't sell for any amount of money. Also, I am not sure whose claims have been decided to be senior to other claims (seniority of claims has little to do with monetary amount). Not all types of debt are equal.
- hbn 2y agoJones seems like a nut, but the way he's being taken to the cleaners and sued for comical amounts of money are just absurd. I'm not being hyperbolic saying people would be less mad at him if he had done the shooting himself. And it's especially rich in a time where the most popular podcast genre is women commenting on brutal murder cases as they're fresh and being investigated, and throwing out their pet theories about real living people being responsible. What's the difference?
- Andrex 2y agoAs a CT native, you'll never coax an ounce of sympathy for Jones from me. He made his bed, doubled down, and faced justice. The system worked at least one time.
- acdha 2y agoJones continued to inflict harm on families who’d lost children, and profited significantly from it both financially and politically. He defied multiple courts, too, so there was no question of premeditation or incapacity, just repeated decisions to cause harm year after year. That’s the difference: true crime podcasts don’t cause harm on that scale, and few people are going to defy the authority of the legal system the way he did.
- roenxi 2y agoWhile that is terrible, I don't know if you can argue it is terrible to the tune of what they've done to Jones. Every major media outlet has some instances of, effectively, targeted harassment in their history. Whether the public endorses that harassment is more a question of how effective the reporters are than anything else. It makes sense that Jones would lose the case, but the scale of the judgements was eye watering and is difficult to justify. The scale of the compensation is in a different world to the amount of damage done (intentionally, the bulk is punative). That changes the nature of what is going on.
- acdha 2y ago> Every major media outlet has some instances of, effectively, targeted harassment in their history. Whether the public endorses that harassment is more a question of how effective the reporters are than anything else. Do you have any examples supporting the equivalence you’re claiming? The high judgements were caused by his defiance of earlier judgements so that pattern is really what we’re looking for.
- impossiblefork 2y agoI really don't understand how a judgement this large can be reasonable in a case where nobody has had his house burned down. A billion dollars is ten billion crowns, that's 10 000 million crowns, or around 5 000 apartments. I don't understand how 5 000 apartments can be a judgement handed out to an individual over something he says. It doesn't really matter what he says, when it's this kind of huge amounts. One can't fine somebody the value of an entire town unless he's done destruction of that order, or at least a fraction of that order.
- PessimalDecimal 2y ago[flagged]
- russdill 2y agoDefamation is free speech now?
- d357r0y3r 2y agoIt's not, as defamation should have legal consequences. A one billion dollar payout verdict is just orders of magnitude off in terms of proportionality. Unfortunately, Alex Jones the person and the nature of Sandy Hook means that most people won't be able to look at this situation with any sort of sanity. The verdict could have been 100 trillion and people would have said it was deserved.
- Eisenstein 2y agoI'm not sure that is the argument that you think it is. If a jury awarded it after seeing all the evidence and the majority of people agree with it, wouldn't that indicate that it is fair? What criteria do you have that overrides the vast majority of people's sense of fairness?
- AustinDev 2y agoA jury isn't involved in a default judgement afaik
- smeeger 2y ago[flagged]
- xbar 2y ago"Auction closed. Reserve not met. Try again."
- declan_roberts 2y agoThe first auction was illegal and this article should be seen as the mea culpa. The families bid the theoretical future earnings of jones instead of actual money. The trustee secretly accepted, but had to walk it back when it was exposed. It's like bidding on a foreclosed house with $0 but beating everybody because you say you're going to rent it and pay back the bank with that money.
- teach 2y agoThe first auction was NOT illegal. The trustee was explicitly granted wide latitude in how to handle the auction, including canceling it outright. [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmDNz7irGgw&t=880 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmDNz7irGgw&t=880
- patrickhogan1 2y agoA bankruptcy trustee was involved during the whole process (3rd party neutral). While the goal of increasing money to creditors here may work due to the free publicity, it harms the creditors interests who already agreed to the settlement. So you have a third party neutral trustee and the creditors who were harmed agreeing. With that said bankruptcy judges do reject plans quite often and this is a high profile case.
- pcdoodle 2y ago[flagged]
- dboreham 2y agoThis is all totally ridiculous. The assets are only worth a large amount when run as a disinformation outlet for Russian/extreme-right propaganda. Since no buyer is going to do that (see earlier, that gets you sued), the assets aren't worth much.
- kylecordes 2y agoNow that it's public knowledge how low the bids were, a re-auction might attract many more bidders and raise a LOT more money for the creditors. It is certainly not an asset with any appeal to me, but a talented brand and e-commerce operator can likely generate a river of cash flow from the IP/audience for sale here.
- devops99 2y agoGiven what was touted early, so loudly and by so many outlets, this is quite the narrative collapse, on an epic scale.
- ginkgotree 2y agoFor an entire week, I thought this was an Onion parody headline, and didn't realize the Onion _actually_ tried to buy Info Wars. We're living in such an entertaining era. Life imitates art.
- Breza 2y agoNot The Onion meets Actually The Onion https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1gr5jz8/the_onion_buys_infowars_website_in_bankruptcy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1gr5jz8/the_on...
- akkad33 2y agoRefuses to allow? This is like saying I dislike to like instead of saying I don't like. I would assume there is a different way of writing that.
- pinkmuffinere 2y ago“Disallow” is one option, though maybe uncommon.
- neom 2y ago"Refuse" is an action verb, "Dislike" is a stative verb. The infinitive phrase ("to allow") serves as a complement to the verb "refuse," forming a grammatically correct structure. refusare = deny.
- akkad33 2y agoI wasn't saying it was grammatically incorrect, just that it was a very bloated and roundabout expression instead of saying something simpler like "the court refuses the merger".
- pestaa 2y ago'Deny' is the trivial choice here I think.
- lowbloodsugar 2y agoThis other company is clearly part of the same legal operation and should also be held liable.
- _zgx0 2y agoThe amount of folks here supporting Alex Jones is completely shocking to me. He built a business out of attacking and re-victimizing parents whose children were murdered. He's scum of the earth. That business was taken away from him, and folks think that's too much? What the actual fuck.
- dtquad 2y ago>The amount of folks here supporting Alex Jones is completely shocking to me That shouldn't be a surprise considering how many American libertarian techbros are fans of Alex Jones Lite (Joe Rogan).
- Eextra953 2y agoIt shocking to me too. I can't understand how people are 'both sides-ing' this or just supporting him under some free speech argument. Free speech has limits and a court found Jones went too far and that cost him his business.
- kypro 2y agoPeople have been arguing the same bogus free speech point in the UK recently because people have been arrested for saying things that are anti-immigration and offensive online. People have free speech, but obviously that doesn't mean you are free to say things that could be considered hateful or factually untrue. If you go around tweeting hateful things about the Royal family and the courts find you guilty, don't be surprised if that costs you your freedom. It's pretty simple. Alex is legally free to saying whatever he wants, but he had the wrong views on Sandy Hook and his wrong views hurt the families affected, therefore he deserves to lose his business.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lesuorac 2y agoIt's really Alex Jones was alleged to pay people to harass Sandy Hook families at all hours of the day. He then proceeded to lie in court and after it become known refused to continue to participate and had a default judgement entered against him. If I were to follow you around 24/7 for weeks shouting into a microphone is that not illegal?
- dudeinjapan 2y ago“Judge refuses to allow sales of Infowars to The Onion, allows sale of Super Male Vitality Alpha-Z Colloidal Silver instead”
- dang 2y agoAll: if you're going to comment here, please review the site guidelines and make sure to stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. There's way too much nasty dross in this thread. No, the topic does not make that ok. As you'll see when you review the guidelines, "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- thorum 2y agoAm I missing something or does this NYT article not actually say what the judge based his decision on? That would be an important piece of information to have when deciding whether the decision was good or not.
- gms7777 2y agoFrom the article: "Judge Lopez said that the bankruptcy auction failed to maximize the amount of money that the sale of Infowars should provide to Mr. Jones’s creditors, including the Sandy Hook families, in part because the bids were submitted in secret. “It seemed doomed almost from the moment they decided to go to a sealed bid,” Judge Lopez said. “Nobody knows what anybody else is bidding,” he added."
- nativeit 2y agoWait, couldn’t this same argument be made in reverse? If the bids were open, the competing parties could simply go $1 above the highest offer, which suggest sealed bids are most appropriate to maximize the value. Auctions can’t be fairly judged in hindsight, generally speaking.
- exac 2y agoThey could do an open run-off round of bids until they have two potential buyers, and then switch to secret ballot to get each party's highest bid I suppose?
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoIf the bids are secret and the highest bidder pays what they bid then bidders have the incentive to try to bid strategically, i.e. less than what they'd be willing to pay as long as they think that's more than anyone else would be willing to pay. Plus, if there is someone who thinks it's worth way more than anyone else, they could just place a modest bid and then if they lose buy it from the winner for $1 more than what the winner values it at anyway. The way you can avoid this with secret bids is to specify that the highest bidder will pay $1 more than the second highest bidder no matter how high they bid. Then everyone has the incentive to actually specify the maximum they'd be willing to pay, because if the next highest bid is lower than that they still actually do want to buy it, but they lose nothing by bidding higher because they only pay a dollar more than the next highest bidder no matter what, and then you maximize bids. But by that point you don't benefit from keeping the high bid a secret anymore, because of human psychology. Someone bids $100, is the current high bidder and thinks they're getting to buy it, then someone outbids them and loss aversion kicks in so they make a higher bid, even though the first bid was supposed to be their max.
- memtet 2y agoI posted the same news 24 days ago, it got downvote-brigaded by malicious actors (at the same time they were upvote-brigading fake news that he lost InfoWars to The Onion): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160692
- jonnycomputer 2y agoWhat kind of news article doesn't explain the judge's reasoning?
- NylaTheWolf 2y agoIsn't Jones being forced to give up his site to pay off the debts, if I remember correctly? I am also confused on why it took a whole month for them to reject the sale when it seems to have been accepted for weeks.