• NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 days ago

    You know what would make the auction process more transparent? Don’t make it a blind auction.

    On a different note, is there a Gofundme up for The Onion to make sure they win the next auction yet?

      • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        While that’s a horrible thought, but pushing the price tag up only helps the Sandy Hook victims. Adding the InfoWars brand to his catalogue doesn’t really expand his reach any further than X.

        It’s kind of a nice thought that he would effectively be paying some of the remuneration.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 days ago

          Adding the InfoWars brand to his catalogue doesn’t really expand his reach any further than X.

          I just worry that he’ll see this as some sort of “free speech crusade” and integrate infowars into X or something. Just for the grift and because he has enough money that nobody tells him “no” anymore.

          But as somebody else pointed out it’s unlikely to go to auction again - so hopefully it’s resolved to the families’ favor.

    • Rykzon@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      11 days ago

      Too late now that this got media awareness, if you believe a GoFundMe is going to raise more than some right-wing media outlet I have a bridge to sell

      • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        11 days ago

        Well that might be true, but the silver lining is that the larger the price tag, the more the Sandy Hook victims actually get. It’s almost like duping the crooked billionaires to pay their taxes.

      • villainy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        11 days ago

        I don’t understand why this matters. The families knowingly accepted the lower bid so The Onion could try and do some good with the brand. It seems like, at the point where it’s being auctioned off with all proceeds going to the families, InfoWars should effectively be theirs to do with as they please.

      • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 days ago

        Well my assumption is that the next auction will be won by the highest bidder, so your point isn’t really contradictory.

        • half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 days ago

          The judge did not actually order a new auction, just left the next steps up to the trustee who oversaw the first auction. The article specifically points this out so I’m not sure if this means there wr other ways it could play out besides redoing the auction.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 days ago

        Read further. There are two judgements against Jones: one for ~$50M and one for ~$1B. In a normal bankruptcy resolution, the 8 families of the $1B judgement will get 95% of the proceeds, while the 2 families of $50M get 5%. “Sandy Hook families forgoing $750,000” means that those 8 families are effectively giving $750k of their millions to the 2 families, resulting in a more even distribution of compensation across the whole group.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    “We can celebrate the judge doing the right thing with the most ridiculous, fraudulent auction known in human history,” he said.

    They used to literally auction human beings, you utter waste of carbon.

  • kyle@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    I find this weird that the judge would say they should’ve been told they can improve their offer, because in a bid process you generally will give a BAFO. If your bid wasn’t the highest, there’s no “further negotiations”. The trustee specifically chose a model where there wouldn’t be back and forth (which may or not have been best, I’m not sure).