It'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.

I'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?

A jury isn't involved in a default judgement afaik

They come up with damages.

No defamation was ever proven in court. It was a default judgement.

Allowing a default judgement in a civil case is equivalent to pleading guilty in a criminal case