Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Ruin his life. Destroy everything he has. Make him reap what he sowed.
Justice boner
Hmm...
Yeah...
Get fucked.
I'm sending thoughts and prayers for his utter fucking destruction
So fuck Alex Jones, but I really don't think it's a good idea to force people to sell their accounts so that other people can impersonate them. It's just inviting social engineering attacks.
Except in this case, much like with Trump, His business and his person were deeply intertwined. So the account is a business asset. And as such, it is subject to being an asset of the company. Maybe he should have separated them at some point.
Yes but you can just tell everyone the attacks never happened, for attention
Isn't it against the tos to sell your account?
If the Wendys burger chain was sold, there would be no problem with the new owner taking the Wendys social media accounts. In this case Jones has long used his social media accounts as part of his business. They're part of the Infowars assets so they can and should be handed over to debtors to settle the claims against Infowars.
Yeah well Wendy's would be owned by the company not a person... You need some kind of legal distinction between the two...
So if Wendy's sold the account to a non Wendy's person that would be different than it being used by a different person within the company... I'm sure most social media companies have a distinction for business accounts.
And if they can close any account if they choose...
Law trumps TOS so it really doesn't matter what it says.
But is there any precedent in selling accounts due to a court decision? Does the social media company get to close the account due to the TOS violation?
In any case, if it does get sold, it'll create an interesting situation.
They argue that trustee Christopher Murray does not have a right to the social media accounts as property that can be sold, and warned that a purchaser could face lawsuits as to whether they were rightfully obtained.
I'd like to buy it and start posting LGBTQ-positive content. I'm not part of the coalition. I just think it'd be fun to watch people react.
Jones is appealing the civil jury verdicts, citing free speech rights and questioning whether the families proved any connection between his comments and the people who harassed and threatened the relatives. He has since acknowledged that the shooting did happen.
Yeah, Margie TG just happened to follow a kid shouting at him for being part of a coverup and recording it on her phone be coincidence. It's not because she gets her talking points from this asshole.
I want john oliver to buy all of his stuff and run his own show with it that would be so funny
What's stopping him from just making infowars2?
His rage is his commodity, so I don't get why he can't just start up a new channel and just do the exact same thing.
They also seized his bank accounts and production equipment.
That said, I wouldn't exactly be shocked if his sycophantic fans got together and built him a studio and gave him a salary.
Or a new patreon account and he would be rolling in money again. But I sure hope he keeps trying because until his debt is settled they are gonna keep taking from him.
I doubt all his equip etc. will be enough to cover the 1 billion. So any and all patreon income could be confiscated as well.
That's what I meant by I hope he keeps trying so it can be taken as well.
Yeah, no idea how I didn't read that part 😅🤦
Unfortunately that’s not a far fetched possibility.
What's stopping him from just making infowars2?
The law, basically. Taking his assets elsewhere to "hide" them from his creditors constitutes fraud.
He even tried to already, but that was shot down by the judge, who made him swear under oath to not try that again. Which he already IS doing, very blatantly.
That's not what they're suggesting, I'm pretty sure. They're saying, after selling all the stuff, just start up a new company with the same schtick. Alex Jones is free to still be Alex Jones. And that's all Info Wars really is/was.
With what money? He owes much more than the combined worth of his personal and business assets. Any significantly similar new company he would found would be under water in debt from the start.
He's banking on a far right billionaire or organization buying Infowars and keeping him on as an employee, because that's the only way he can keep doing it.
🤷 That's a different question.
And he's actually been trying again recently as the auction gets closer. But people aren't really following him to his new Twitter account
He would still be in arrears for this judgement , as the seizures and auctions won’t actually cover all of the award. So, Infowars 2 would just be taken as well.
Fuck this guy.
But his personal social media account? What the fuck is that
It'd be pretty fun if some org with opposite political leanings bought the account.
I'm hoping that the important assets get sold to the Knowledge Fight podcast. They'd be the ones able to do the most good with them.
What's the worst that can happen? Someone buys it and starts hawking boner pills? Yeah, that ain't exactly gonna ruin his good name.
Think bigger, someone gets the accounts and releases all of his private messages. If he doesn't delete them. I'm on the fence about the precident this would set.
Deleting them could be seen as intentionally diminishing the value of the asset before auction and get him in more trouble.
This seems very bizarre to me. Is the argument, someone could make money off your account therefore it's an asset that can be sold off? Next I suppose we should sell his body off into prostitution.
Still, nice to see Lemmy wholeheartedly supporting capitalism for once...
Ooh, I know, next force him to sell his Steam account!
I think it has more to do with the fact that he uses his twitter account mostly to advertise his business, making it more of a business account than a personal account even though it has his name on it.
Edit:
In seeking the rights to the social media accounts, the legal team for the trustee argued in court filings that Jones’ X account, and others on Telegram, Gab, Parler and other platforms, “are frequently used to promote and post Infowars content, and in some cases, have a significant number of followers.” Jones’ X account has nearly 3 million followers.
The trustee argued that social media accounts of influencers, celebrities and political personalities have become valuable assets, and that Jones’ accounts have drawn particular interest from multiple parties in buying them.
From the article neither of us bothered to read.
I don't think that changes it. He uses the likeness of his face also; if some ad company wants to buy the rights to the likeness of his face is he forced to sell?
True I didn't read the article though.
His billion dollar settlement won't be discharged through this bankruptcy, so his wages will probably be garnished for the rest of his life as it is. I really don't have any sympathy for him, and taking the social media account he's been using for his business as part of that business's liquidation really doesn't feel like a big deal.
The precedent troubles me. That a media account in a personal name, even if through that one does commercial or objectionable things, can become a commodity to buy and sell - and be forced to sell.
The same precedent applies to ordinary people too. Should a debt collector acquire your Facebook page? Because you used Facebook marketplace it's now a business asset?
If you had a talk show called the [Your Name] show, should it be immune to bankruptcy courts? Should a the company [Your Name] Inc. not be allowed to be bought and sold? Should we forbid people from selling tshirts or pictures with their names and faces on them? Where do you think we should draw the line?
The same precedent applies to ordinary people too. Should a debt collector acquire your Facebook page? Because you used Facebook marketplace it’s now a business asset?
Most people don't own a business. The occasional use of facebook marketplace doesn't make a personal account part of a nonexistant business.
That's a fair point. It seems rather awkward. Selling off the assets of said talk show, easy decision. Selling the brand, though, if it's tied to your person / personal name, that seems dubious. Especially against the named person's will.
For something like t-shirt likenesses, I suppose I think the line is the person's consent. I can sell permission for my face to be on your t-shirt, but being forced to seems wrong. In the extreme case: a person is legally entitled to sell nude images of themselves, but surely a court would never order it, even if that person had been previously selling nude images.
For something like t-shirt likenesses, I suppose I think the line is the person’s consent
So if he had a warehouse full of tshirts with his name or face on them and decides after filing bankruptcy that he doesn't want to sell them anymore, should he just get to keep it? Should it all be destroyed?
If he took a cattle brand and burned his name into everything on set, does that mean he shouldn't have to sell it any more?
In the extreme case: a person is legally entitled to sell nude images of themselves, but surely a court would never order it, even if that person had been previously selling nude images.
If someone was already selling porn before, do you think if they continued to that they shouldn't have to give any of that money they earned to the people they owe money to? This case isn't anywhere near that extreme because he's not the only person in the world named 'Alex Jones', so how much of his 'likeness' is being sold is debatable to begin with. And also, we aren't talking about future permission to use his likeness, we're talking about a social media account used to promote his business.
if he had a warehouse full of tshirts with his name or face on them and decides after filing bankruptcy that he doesn't want to sell them anymore, should he just get to keep it? Should it all be destroyed?
It's more like, should be be forced to sell them to someone else who will put their own messages on the t-shirt with his face.
As to the cattle brand (and less so the t-shirts), the cattle are valuable property regardless of his branding. The social media account is the branding. To forceably sell the cattle is quite different from forceably selling the brand with his name.
It goes further: the real value of his social media handle, I imagine, is the number of subscribers it has. Are subscribers an asset to be bought and sold? Capitalism thinks so. But I think they're not 'his' assets, they're the choices of those subscribers. To 'buy' them seems like defrauding the people who chose to listen to him.
If someone was already selling porn before, do you think if they continued to that they shouldn't have to give any of that money they earned to the people they owe money to?
The money they earned - exactly! Not forcing them to keep doing porn. Of course this case isn't extreme like that.
how much of his 'likeness' is being sold is debatable to begin with
No it's not. The value is that it is (was) his Alex Jones account, presumably with his subscribers too. Or are there a bunch of other Alex Jonses clamouring to have the handle freed so they can have the name fresh for themselves? I'm sure they'd like it; but that's not the value in this case.
Wipe his Twitter account - if you think deplatforming is an appropriate action. Let another person buy the name fresh (and be sued if they use it to pretend they are him). Take his real assets and sell them. But taking his Twitter account as is and selling it seems, IMHO, the wrong sort of capitalism.
All I can really say is, if you don't want your personal image to be commodified, you probably shouldn't commodify it. The fact that Alex Jones has used his company that's deeply tied to his personal image to attack and lie about the families of the victims of Sandy Hook make his case particularly unsympathetic, and so now that he owes an absurd amount of money to those families I think he should be forced to give up his social media accounts if it helps give those families what they're owed.
It also doesn't help that he still thinks there are "unanswered questions" about what happened at Sandy Hook and doesn't feel any remorse for lying and spreading misinformation about the families for years.
Take his real assets and sell them.
This is exactly what the lawyers trying to take the account think they're doing. There's some real value in having access to his social media followers, especially if that access can be tied to the purchase of the larger operation.
But I think they’re not ‘his’ assets, they’re the choices of those subscribers. To ‘buy’ them seems like defrauding the people who chose to listen to him.
And those subscribers can easily unfollow him as soon as they don't like what they're hearing. It's not like once you follow someone on twitter you're forced to see updates from them for the rest of your life. But since they're following TheRealAlexJones probably to get updates about his business at InfoWars, it makes sense that the social media account that he uses to promote the business being sold needs to be considered as part of the business.
Everyone is missing the best part of the article:
and his video game “Alex Jones NWO Wars” released in 2023, that features Jones as the hero in a shooting game.
Alex Jones killing Hogan and Kevin Nash? But they're on the same side!
Cry some more crocodile tears ya no-neck freak.
Even his only fans?