Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Onion buys Infowars

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#211

Post by blackguardx »

TeeMassive wrote: post #154
consumer451 wrote: post #18

Tim Onion's (Ben Collins) statement on Bluesky: [0] > Hi everyone. > The Onion, with the help of the Sandy Hook families, has purchased InfoWars. > We are planning on making it a very funny, very stupid website. > We have retained the services of some Onion and Clickhole Hall of Famers to pull this off. > I can't wait to show you what we have cooked up. Next post: [1] > Does anybody need millions of dollars worth of…

I doubt that the SH families will receive the kind of money they could have had if they accepted Jones' original offer. Their lawyers made it clear they were in it not for their clients' interest but for their own political agenda.

Can you elaborate? What was the offer? They won a judgement over $1B.

Also, I don’t think their agenda is political, it is personal.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#212

Post by ben_w »

hiddencost wrote: post #181
ben_w wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to imagine anyone that could be more effective at achieving that than Jones. Asking as a non-American: how disturbing would it be if he appointed Putin?

If you wanted your comment to hit a bit better, you might have considered, e.g., Lavrov.

I didn't know who that was until googling before replying, are you sure that's going to hit better with an American audience?

Either on Hacker News or as an "own the libs" choice for Trump?

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#213

Post by jorvi »

maeln wrote: post #167
soco wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now if we want to get into dirty details, no bureaucrat is ever elected. You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with. Or is this in the UK different?

> You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with. This is not always the case, although I guess it depends how you define bureaucrats. As an example, in France, most of the administration is not nominated. You become a public worker through exam, and the representative usually have no power over your nomination, raises, etc. It does make sense in a lot of cas…

Meanwile, Macron chooses to ignore a left victory, then refuses to accept their prime minister and instead co-opts the election to instant the same center-right government that was broken up a few months prior. :+)

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#214

Post by ackbar03 »

plorg wrote: post #205
chvid wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess this is about the domain name infowars.com which belongs to a bankrupt company. Alex Jones is such a big name and has other channels (x.com, Joe Rogan etc.) that he can easily build a similar site/business under a new domain name. Perhaps The Onion should ask - who gets most promotion of this?

The auction included all of the InfoWars and several associated corporations' assets, including the studio and the supplements business. At one point the settlement administrator was trying to get Alex's Twitter handle. I believe he's been doing some half-ass scheming to create essentially the same company but in his parents' name, and I doubt he has a problem getting listeners back.

... Infowars had a supplements business?

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#215

Post by beepbooptheory »

josefresco wrote: post #165
tialaramex wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core idea of satire, which is often missed in supposedly satirical works is that you should not only make fun of the thing you don't believe, but you should also explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it. For example everybody knows Swift's Modest Proposal does not seriously intend that the problems in Ireland ought to be fixed by literally eating children , but if you read it, the p…

> The core idea of satire, which is often missed in supposedly satirical works is that you should not only make fun of the thing you don't believe, but you should also explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it. I often suggest that satire is a dangerous double edged sword and not a good primary vehicle for positive change. Part of your audience will understand it's satire, but a signific…

I definitely see the problems you are pointing out, but ultimately these calls from you and gp to forms of responsibility or to be a "vehicle for positive change" of satirical or otherwise funny things leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I just sometimes want things to be cathartic, I don't really care if they are pushing the needle of the world's ills. I want to be able to laugh and not necessarily be a better person for it! There has got to be some space for that too, right?

And ok, if there is some committee somewhere to dictate that all satire must be "responsible", must follow its founding Swiftian maxim, then fine, we don't have to call it that. But whatever it is can still be good, can help those find a little fun in an absurd world. We should care as much about the simply depressed people as we do the possibly confused or evil.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#216

Post by darepublic »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #28
dogleash wrote: post #14

Funny concept. Shame that The Onion's writing these days so mid.

I think the Onion is as good as it ever was. The issue now is that the real news is so wild and unhinged the Onion doesn't have that segment cornered anymore.

The Onion youtube vids of the late 2000's were phenomenal. It was all downhill from there imo. Take a look at this recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2niC4ACCp20. I don't like Taylor Swift but this is just not funny. I don't see what the point of it is is.

Compare to this celebrity satire of the golden era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9QisdRPwEM.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#217

Post by blackguardx »

nixdev wrote: post #163
kregasaurusrex wrote: post #64

There's tonnes of worthless merchandise and supplements of a dubious nature which The Onion, the least expected of all possible buyers, now has to find a use for. My first suggestion would be melting down all of the 500% marked up gold bars[0] and make a one-time-run charity auction collectible for the Sandy Hook families. Or upcycling all the paper in Alex Jones' books [1] into paper mache, and use it to make globes…

> supplements of a dubious nature They are re-labled existing products that are sold in other places, and unironically already-recognized, before being re-labled by InfoWars, as very high quality. If you're gonna criticize InfoWars you have my 100% support in your right to do so, but try not to post out of your ass. This is HackerNews, not Reddit.

Can you give an example of these high-quality supplements? Otherwise folks just have to take you at your word that they exist.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#218

Post by bbor »

chvid wrote: post #160
jsheard wrote: post #2

The announcement by America's Finest News Source: https://theonion.com/heres-why-i-decided-to-buy-infowars/ Alex Jones response: https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1857058831135645739

I guess this is about the domain name infowars.com which belongs to a bankrupt company. Alex Jones is such a big name and has other channels (x.com, Joe Rogan etc.) that he can easily build a similar site/business under a new domain name. Perhaps The Onion should ask - who gets most promotion of this?

Hmm NBC seems to imply that they purchased "Free Speech Systems", which is the parent company for the entire operation. Of course, who knows what they'll actually get other than the domain and copyrights -- Jones will just move all the physical assets into a storage unit/another office and dare them to complain, Guliani-style. Also, who knows if any of these stands for long, anyway; the cases are in state court (Connecticut and Texas) but what's stopping the president from issuing an executive order clearing them? Laws?

Re: "who gets the most promotion", IDK I think it's definitely the new owner of the Onion. Personally speaking, I think we're past the "don't give them attention" stage of fascism, and "they were bought by a satire company" isn't exactly a better rallying cry than Jones has already been spouting during the entire litigation. Plus, I trust them;

  The anti-violence organization Everytown for Gun Safety said it will be the exclusive advertiser in The Onion’s new venture as part of a multiyear agreement. John Feinblatt, the group’s president, said in a statement that he hopes to “reach new audiences ready to hold the gun industry accountable for contributing to our nation’s gun violence epidemic.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/onion-wins-alex-jones-i...

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#219

Post by wwweston »

maeln wrote: post #167
soco wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now if we want to get into dirty details, no bureaucrat is ever elected. You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with. Or is this in the UK different?

> You elect the representatives, and they nominate in turn whoever bureaucrats they feel comfy to work with. This is not always the case, although I guess it depends how you define bureaucrats. As an example, in France, most of the administration is not nominated. You become a public worker through exam, and the representative usually have no power over your nomination, raises, etc. It does make sense in a lot of cas…

> I guess it depends how you define bureaucrats.

“If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, [those who work at public bureaus] have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us."

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#220

Post by [deleted] »

afavour wrote: post #194
nixdev wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

whoops, looks like you let the mask slip! I see you started this thread debating the merits of trust in the court system, I'm relieved we've finally got to the crux of it. You consume and identify with the kind of crank material Infowars publishes. Thank you for letting us know.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN