conspiracy theories

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Alex Jones’s Infowars Will Be Auctioned Off to Pay Sandy Hook Families

      by

      A sale of the Infowars website and other property is set for November, and could determine the conspiracy theorist’s fate as a broadcaster.A Houston bankruptcy judge ruled on Tuesday that assets from the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s Infowars empire can be auctioned off to help pay families of the Sandy Hook mass shooting victims the defamation awards he owes them.The auction, set for mid-November, will include Infowars’ website, social media accounts, broadcasting equipment, product trademarks and inventory owned by Free Speech Systems, Infowars’ parent company.Mr. Jones’s fate as a broadcaster most likely depends on who buys his business. Though the Infowars name and assets are potentially of interest to a range of entities on the far right, under the terms of the sale anyone can bid.Mr. Jones spent years spreading lies that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 first graders and six educators was a hoax aimed at confiscating Americans’ firearms, and that the victims’ families were actors complicit in the plot. The families suffered online abuse, personal confrontations and death threats from people who believed the conspiracy theory.Relatives of 10 victims sued Mr. Jones in 2018 for defamation and were awarded more than $1.4 billion in damages in trials in Texas and Connecticut. But the most the families are likely to ever see is a small fraction of that, and they have been divided over how to equitably distribute the money.As the cases headed to court in 2022, Mr. Jones’s company declared bankruptcy. Mr. Jones declared personal bankruptcy soon afterward.Since then, the families have been wrangling in bankruptcy court over assets and revenue that are far less than they originally envisioned. Mr. Jones’s personal and business assets combined are worth less than $10 million, according to independent valuations presented in court. His lawyers and other bankruptcy professionals will be paid first, leaving even less for the families.The Connecticut and Texas sides divided sharply over how to go after Free Speech Systems. Lawyers for the families who sued Mr. Jones in Connecticut — the relatives of eight victims — favored shutting down the company and liquidating its assets, with the money distributed among the family members.Lawyers for families who sued Mr. Jones in Texas favored a settlement in which he would pay them a percentage of his income over the next decade, most likely netting more money for each relative. As a condition of the latter deal, Mr. Jones would have had to agree never to mention the shooting again.The asset sale is probably the least lucrative option for the family members, though its potential for shutting down Infowars appealed to some. Juries in the two lawsuits awarded individual relatives widely varying amounts, and lawyers from the Connecticut and Texas sides have been dueling over how to fairly allocate the money.The situation is further complicated by the fact that a jury has yet to decide how much in damages Mr. Jones must pay Lenny Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, whose son Noah Pozner died in the shooting. More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How Meta Distanced Itself From Politics

      by

      In January 2021, after pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, Mark Zuckerberg announced a new priority for Meta: He wanted to reduce the amount of political content on the company’s apps, including Facebook and Instagram.As the United States hurtles toward November’s election, Mr. Zuckerberg’s plan appears to be working.On Facebook, Instagram and Threads, political content is less heavily featured. App settings have been automatically set to de-emphasize the posts that users see about campaigns and candidates. And political misinformation is harder to find on the platforms after Meta removed transparency tools that journalists and researchers used to monitor the sites.Inside Meta, Mr. Zuckerberg, 40, no longer meets weekly with the heads of election security as he once did, according to four employees. He has reduced the number of full-time employees working on the issue and disbanded the election integrity team, these employees said, though the company says the election integrity workers were integrated into other teams. He has also decided not to have a “war room,” which Meta previously used to prepare for elections.Last month, Mr. Zuckerberg sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee laying out how he wanted to distance himself and his company from politics. The goal, he said, was to be “neutral” and to not “even appear to be playing a role.”“It’s quite the pendulum swing because a decade ago, everyone at Facebook was desperate to be the face of elections,” said Katie Harbath, chief executive of Anchor Change, a tech consulting firm, who previously worked at Facebook. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How A.I., QAnon and Falsehoods Are Reshaping the Presidential Race

      by

      Three experts on social media and disinformation share their predictions for this year’s chaotic election.This year’s presidential election has been polluted with rumors, conspiracy theories and a wave of artificial intelligence imagery. Former President Donald J. Trump has continued to sow doubts about election integrity as his allies across the country have taken steps to make election denial a fixture of the balloting process.How worried should voters be?To better understand the role that misinformation and conspiracy theories are playing this year, The New York Times asked three authors of new books about disinformation and social media to share their views and predictions.The risk that violence could spring from election denialism seems as pressing as in the weeks after the 2020 election, when Trump supporters — incensed by false claims of voter fraud — stormed the Capitol building, they argue. But the day-to-day churn of falsehoods and rumors that spread online may be getting largely drowned out by the billions spent on political advertising.In a series of emails with The Times, the authors laid out their predictions for the year. These interviews have been edited for length and clarity.Q. Let’s jump right in: How concerned are you that conspiracy theories and misinformation will influence the outcome of this year’s presidential election?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Who Is Laura Loomer, the Far-Right Activist Who Traveled With Trump?

      by

      After fellow Republicans criticized her appearance on the trail, noting her history of offensive remarks, former President Donald J. Trump praised her but later said he disagreed with some of her statements.Five years ago Laura Loomer, a far-right activist with a history of expressing bigoted views and a knack for generating publicity, filed an application for a trademark to protect her work in “the field of political activism.”Ms. Loomer, 31, part of a generation of web-savvy right-wing influencers, decided to trademark the term she had coined for her signature move of ambushing people with unexpected, often embarrassing questions. She called it getting “Loomered.”Already a well-known figure among internet obsessives thanks to her anti-Muslim activism, undercover sting operations and web-savvy political stunts, Ms. Loomer found herself at the center of the presidential campaign this week when she traveled with former President Donald J. Trump. She went with him to Philadelphia for the presidential debate, and then accompanied him to Sept. 11 memorial events in New York City and Shanksville, Pa., which drew pointed criticism from Democrats and Republicans because she had previously called Sept. 11 “an inside job.”Here’s more about Laura Loomer.Why are politicians from both parties criticizing her?Ms. Loomer has made a number of racist, sexist, homophobic and Islamophobic comments in the past. She has described Islam as a “cancer,” used the hashtag “#proudislamophobe” and once seemed to celebrate the deaths of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. In 2018, after Twitter banned her for frequent anti-Muslim content, she handcuffed herself to the company’s headquarters in New York and wore a yellow Star of David similar to those Nazis forced Jews to wear during the Holocaust (Ms. Loomer is Jewish).After the billionaire Elon Musk bought Twitter, her account was reinstated, and she has since built up a following of more than 1.2 million people on the site (which Mr. Musk later renamed X) and has a web show. She often blasts out content praising Mr. Trump and viciously attacking anyone she might perceive as a rival.Two days before she traveled with Mr. Trump to the debate, she wrote in a post on X that if Vice President Kamala Harris, whose mother was Indian American, won the election, the White House would “smell like curry.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Ronda Rousey Apologizes for Reposting Sandy Hook Conspiracy Video

      by

      The former U.F.C. star apologized after Reddit users asked her about the video she shared 11 years ago. She called it “the single most regrettable decision of my life.”The former mixed martial arts superstar and professional wrestler Ronda Rousey apologized on Friday for reposting a video in 2013 that spread conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, calling it “the single most regrettable decision of my life.”Ms. Rousey, who was one of the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s biggest stars, explained in her apology that she “watched a Sandy Hook conspiracy video and reposted it on twitter.”Ms. Rousey said the news media never asked her about the post, which has since been deleted. She said she considered apologizing for it many times, including in her memoir, but worried that doing so might “lead more people down the black hole” of conspiracies.“I deserve to be hated, labeled, detested, resented and worse for it,” she said in her apology, adding, “I apologize that this came 11 years too late.”Ms. Rousey’s apology came days after she hosted a Q. and A. session on Reddit.A user asked her if she should apologize for “sharing a video that you called ‘must-watch’ and ‘interesting’ that had claimed the Sandy Hook School Massacre was part of a government conspiracy.” Other users also asked about her old post.On Dec. 14, 2012, a 20-year-old man armed with semiautomatic pistols and a semiautomatic rifle walked into the school in Newtown, Conn., and killed 26 people, 20 of them children.In the years since, false conspiracy theories about the event have proliferated on the internet.In 2018, relatives of Sandy Hook victims sued Alex Jones, a media personality who spread conspiracy theories about the shooting through his company Infowars, for defamation. They were awarded more than $1.4 billion in damages, though what the families might receive is unclear as further legal battles drag on.In a post dated Jan. 15, 2013, Ms. Rousey wrote, “asking questions and doing research is more patriotic than blindly accepting what you’re told,” apparently in response to backlash she received about the video she had shared, according to a 2013 article on Bleacher Report, a sports news website.A 2013 analysis in The Huffington Post said the video, which appears to have been removed from YouTube, made a variety of false claims, including that some of the people in the school were paid actors.A lawyer and agents representing Ms. Rousey did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday.Her apology has been viewed more than seven million times, and has received more than 2,000 comments, many of which appear to be supportive.In 2018, Ms. Rousey became the first woman to be inducted into the U.F.C. Hall of Fame. She also won a bronze medal at the 2008 Olympics in middleweight judo and for years was one of the biggest stars for WWE. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump promueve imágenes falsas de IA para sugerir que Taylor Swift lo apoyó

      by

      El expresidente ha estado preocupado por la popularidad de la megaestrella de la música pop, quien apoyó a Joe Biden durante las elecciones de 2020.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]El expresidente Donald Trump, quien le ha guardado un notorio rencor a la megaestrella de la música pop Taylor Swift, incendió internet el domingo cuando compartió mensajes en las redes sociales sugiriendo que Swift lo había apoyado y que sus fans podrían ayudarlo a ganar las elecciones de noviembre.En una publicación en su red social Truth Social, Trump llamó la atención sobre un grupo de imágenes creadas mediante inteligencia artificial. Una de ellas mostraba a Swift disfrazada del Tío Sam con el siguiente titular: “Taylor quiere que votes por Donald Trump”. Las otras mostraban a una multitud de mujeres jóvenes con camisetas a juego de “swifties for Trump”.Al menos una de las imágenes, que fueron compartidas por un influente de las redes sociales que simpatiza con Trump, fue etiquetada como “sátira”.“Acepto”, escribió Trump en una publicación, dando a entender que había recibido el apoyo de Swift.Un representante de la cantante, quien no ha hecho un respaldo este ciclo electoral después de apoyar a Joe Biden en 2020, no respondió inmediatamente a una solicitud de comentarios el lunes.Las burlas de los demócratas no se hicieron esperar.El representante por California, Eric Swalwell , quien apareció en CNN el lunes, dijo que la medida sería contraproducente para Trump.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Los ataques contra Kamala Harris reflejan el auge de la vulgaridad y la intolerancia en internet

      by

      Los políticos suelen sufrir ataques racistas y sexistas en internet. Pero Harris está siendo atacada en más plataformas, con nuevas tecnologías y ante audiencias más numerosas que Barack Obama y Hillary Clinton.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]En internet ya se hacían ataques racistas y sexistas mucho antes de que la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris iniciara su campaña presidencial este mes, incluso durante la campaña de Barack Obama y Hillary Clinton. Sin embargo, desde las últimas elecciones presidenciales, se ha vuelto aún más virulento y más central para la política estadounidense.En 2008, Obama se enfrentó a un ecosistema en el que Facebook tenía millones de usuarios, no miles de millones, y el iPhone apenas tenía un año de haber salido al mercado. En 2016, la campaña de Clinton vigilaba un puñado de plataformas de redes sociales, no decenas. En 2020, cuando Harris era la compañera de fórmula de Joe Biden, era mucho más difícil utilizar la inteligencia artificial para producir las representaciones pornográficas falsas y los videos engañosos en los que ahora se dice que aparece.En solo una semana desde que Harris —negra, de ascendencia india y mujer— se convirtió en la presunta candidata presidencial demócrata, han aparecido falsas narrativas y teorías conspirativas sobre ella por todo el panorama digital.Muchas cosas han cambiado de cara a las elecciones de 2024. Ahora, a esas afirmaciones se han incrementado, alimentadas por un tono cada vez más agresivo del discurso político respaldado por políticos de alto nivel, impulsado por la IA y otras nuevas tecnologías, y difundido a través de un paisaje en línea mucho más fragmentado y repleto de plataformas sin moderación.“La esfera política ha sido sexista y racista durante mucho tiempo. Lo que ha cambiado es el ecosistema de medios en el que crece esa retórica problemática”, afirmó Meg Heckman, profesora adjunta de Periodismo de la Universidad Northeastern. “Es casi como si hubiera varios universos mediáticos paralelos, de modo que no todos operamos con un conjunto de hechos compartidos”, agregó.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Biden and Trump Have Succeeded in Breaking Reality

      by

      Four years ago the Republican convention was a bizarre spectacle, a cross between a Napoleonic fantasy and a Leni Riefenstahl movie. The dominant image was of an imperial dynasty laying claim to forever rule. I expected more of the same when I tuned in on Monday night to watch this year’s convention, but amped up even further by the weekend’s terrifying near-miss assassination attempt.What I saw instead was an even-toned, inclusive performance that seemed designed to resemble conventions of a more, well, conventional era, or perhaps just entertainment-world award shows. The lineup of speakers offered racial, gender and even ideological diversity — including the Teamsters’ president, Sean O’Brien, who announced from the main stage that his organization was “not beholden to anyone or any party.”You don’t have to agree with Donald Trump on everything was a consistent talking point. As for the shooting, it had been instantly mythologized as a miracle of survival: Speaker after speaker, including Trump himself, credited the Almighty with saving the former president so he could save America. There was no reference to the speculation, multiplying across the internet, that the deep state was behind the assassination attempt. Even Donald Trump was, by his standards, cogent and calm.While one half of the electorate was being served this bland spectacle, the other half struggled to follow a dispiriting and confusing story in which the stakes in the presidential election are existential — and the only man who can save American democracy is President Biden. Even as more and more funders, political operatives and ordinary Democratic voters said that he should withdraw his candidacy, the campaign told them to put their faith in a frail, diminished man — worse than that, it insisted that he was neither frail nor diminished.In the interview with Lester Holt that was broadcast on the first night of the Republican convention, Biden’s most energetic moment came when he lashed out at the press for criticizing him rather than his opponent — a favorite tactic of demagogues everywhere. If the media criticize him, then the media are bad. If the polls show a lack of support for his candidacy, then the polls are wrong. If his allies are trying to save him from himself, then they are no longer his allies. The president and his campaign have adopted the habits of the monster they promise to save us from.The week felt like an emotional reprise of the early months (or was it years?) of the Trump presidency. Every day, it seemed, brought news that felt like it would change history. We assimilated it and moved on, getting up in the morning, going about our business, pausing to express shock at another piece of news, and starting the cycle over again. We developed the ability to feel simultaneously shaken and bored, dismayed and indifferent. As media outlets engaged with Trump’s lies — some enthusiastically and others because it could not be avoided — we grew accustomed to an ever growing gap between reality as we experienced it and the ways in which it was reflected back to us by politicians and journalists.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More