InfoWars reporter shot dead outside his apartment after possibly interrupting burglars: Police
Alex Wong/Getty Images, FILE
(AUSTIN, Texas) — A homicide investigation is underway after a reporter for InfoWars, the website run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, was shot dead outside his apartment complex in Austin, Texas, according to police.
The victim, Jamie White, 36, was found lying on the ground in the parking lot around 11:56 p.m. Sunday, Austin police said. Infowars is based in Austin.
The suspects may have been burglarizing White’s car when White interrupted them, police said.
The suspects fled the scene after the shooting, police said.
Jones wrote on X, “We pledge that Jamie’s tragic death will not be in vain, and those responsible for this senseless violence will be brought to justice.”
Anyone with information about this shooting should call police at 512-974-TIPS, or submit a tip to Crime Stoppers at 512-472-8477.
(NEW YORK) — Meta, the parent company of Facebook, announced plans Tuesday to replace fact-checkers with a user-based system known as “community notes.”
Fact-checkers who were put in place in the wake of Donald Trump’s 2016 election have proven to be “too politically biased” and have destroyed “more trust than they’ve created,” particularly in the United States, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a video posted by the company.
“The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech,” Zuckerberg added.
The policy shift will make the platform more generally permissive toward user posts, especially on some controversial subjects such as immigration and gender, the company said. Zuckerberg also acknowledged that the change may mean “we’re going to catch less bad stuff.”
The decision will impact content moderation on Meta-owned platforms Facebook, Instagram and Threads, which count nearly 4 billion users worldwide.
Critics of the move said it reflected a partisan effort to align Meta with President-elect Trump, who has repeatedly criticized the company for alleged anti-conservative bias. Proponents, meanwhile, praised the decision as a sign of renewed emphasis on free speech rather than content policing.
Experts who spoke to ABC News said it’s difficult to know exactly what motivated the company, but they said both explanations are plausible.
Meta may view the decision as an opportunity to jettison a policy targeted by conservatives and curry favor with Trump, while shifting the company toward a permissive stance on speech that Zuckerberg has previously avowed, the experts said.
“Zuckerberg knew he’d have a fight on his hands to change the basic tenets of Facebook,” Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law who studies content moderation, told ABC News. “The question is: Why now?”
Meta did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Meta launched the fact-checking program in the heat of intense scrutiny leveled at the company regarding the spread of misinformation on the platform during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The initiative came under criticism from prominent Republicans, including Trump, who accused the company of anti-conservative bias in its evaluation of user posts.
Tension between Meta and Trump intensified in early 2021, when the company banned Trump’s accounts from its platforms in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. At the time, Zuckerberg called the risks of allowing Trump on the platform “simply too great.”
In recent years, however, the social media platforms have shifted toward a conservative-friendly, laissez-faire approach to speech, Sol Messing, a research associate professor at New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics and a former research scientist at Facebook, told ABC News.
Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk acquired then-Twitter, now X, in October 2022, moving soon afterward to weaken the platform’s content moderation rules and emphasize a “community notes” approach. Last year, Meta reinstated Trump’s accounts.
“There’s been a shift rightward in terms of attitudes toward free speech in Silicon Valley and perhaps this decision is part of that,” Messing added.
Lately, Meta and Zuckerberg have appeared to warm toward Trump. Meta donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration last month, after having foregone a donation to Trump’s inauguration in 2017.
On Monday, Meta appointed Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, a Trump ally, to the company’s board of directors. The move came days after Meta named former Republican lobbyist Joel Kaplan as its new chief global affairs officer.
“It’s very difficult to ignore this [fact-checking] announcement in terms of the timing of those moves, as well,” Messing said, noting other potential reasons for the move such as cost-cutting or skepticism about the role of experts in policing content.
For his part, Trump appears to believe he influenced the policy change. When asked at a press conference at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday whether Meta’s new content moderation policy came in response to his previous criticism of the company, Trump said, “Probably.”
Still, there is reason to believe the policy change brings Meta’s content moderation approach into closer alignment with views previously expressed by Zuckerberg, some experts said.
In a blog post on Tuesday, Meta referred to a graduation speech delivered by Zuckerberg at Georgetown University in 2019 in which he advocated for loose restrictions on speech.
“Some people believe giving more people a voice is driving division rather than bringing us together. More people across the spectrum believe that achieving the political outcomes they think matter is more important than every person having a voice. I think that’s dangerous,” Zuckerberg said at the time.
Goldman, of Santa Clara University, said Zuckerberg may be seizing upon Trump-era opposition toward content moderation.
“It’s plausible that Zuckerberg all along has felt Facebook was doing too much content moderation, and he has finally decided to express that view more forcefully,” Goldman said. “It’s not a new view for Zuckerberg to be questioning the value of content moderation.”
(BEVERLY, Mass.) — A Massachusetts man has been arrested after police said he made violent antisemitic posts online.
Matthew Scouras, 34, allegedly “posted threats to rape Jewish women and encouraged other users of the site to shoot people outside of synagogues,” according to the Beverly Police Department.
Police said the FBI notified them Thursday of the threats posted to an online message board.
A search of Scouras’ home turned up a Nazi flag, a ghost gun, six boxes of ammunition, other firearm parts and over $70,000 in cash, police said.
Scouras was taken into custody Saturday and held for a mental health evaluation, police said.
He was arraigned Monday and is being held without bail pending a court hearing on Jan. 13.
Scouras has been charged with making threats to destroy a place of worship.
He also faces numerous gun charges, including 12 counts for possession of a firearm without a license and making a firearm without a serial number.
It was not immediately clear if he has retained an attorney.
(LOS ANGELES) — Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter filed a defamation suit Monday against an Alabama woman who claimed he raped her when she was 13 in a since-withdrawn civil lawsuit.
Carter’s lawsuit said the woman, identified as Jane Doe, timed her claim “to inflict maximum pain and suffering on Mr. Carter” to extort payments from him.
The lawsuit also named the woman’s attorneys, Tony Buzbee and David Fortney, whom Jay-Z alleged “were soullessly motivated by greed, in abject disregard of the truth and the most fundamental precepts of human decency.”
The woman initially claimed that Jay-Z and Sean “Diddy” Combs took turns sexually assaulting her when she was 13 at a party following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. Both men denied the allegation.
Jane Doe withdrew her lawsuit last month after Carter raised questions about the veracity of her account and his attorney sought sanctions against Buzbee.
“Doe has now voluntarily admitted directly to representatives of Mr. Carter that the story brought before the world in court and on global television was just that: a false, malicious story. She has admitted that Mr. Carter did not assault her; and that indeed it was Buzbee himself … who pushed her to go forward with the false narrative of the assault by Mr. Carter in order to leverage a maximum payday,” Carter’s defamation lawsuit said.
“But the extortion and abuse of Mr. Carter by Doe and her lawyers must stop,” it continued.
In response, Buzbee released a statement saying, “Shawn Carter’s investigators have repeatedly harassed, threatened and harangued this poor woman for weeks trying to intimidate her and make her recant her story. She hasn’t, and won’t. Instead she has stated repeatedly she stands by her claims. These same group of investigators have been caught on tape offering to pay people to sue me and my firm. After speaking with Jane Doe today, it appears that the quotes attributed to her in the lawsuit are completely made up, or they spoke to someone who isn’t Jane Doe.”
He added, “This is just another attempt to intimidate and bully this poor woman that we will deal with in due course. We won’t be bullied or intimidated by frivolous cases.”
ABC News’ Jennifer Leong contributed to this report.
