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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#901

Post by hackernewds »

chippiewill wrote: post #891
superfrank wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jones owes them $1.5 billion. They're never going to see most of that judgement. They're likely giving up money they were never going to receive anyway. My hunch is that the judge and everyone involved knows that they aren't going to get anything substantial from Jones, which is why they allowed them to use money they are owed from the judgement as part of the bid. It allows them to get something of value out of the…

> They're likely giving up money they were never going to receive anyway. They're giving up money that a higher bidder would have paid for infowars. Essentially the difference between The Onion's bid, and the bid of whoever else would buy.

That is not going to be permitted by the judge or other bidders

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#902

Post by hackernewds »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #838
sverhagen wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>bought Infowars and hired him back to keep doing his show So, if any, where's the value? In InfoWars, or with Jones? I.e., can't he just go into a new venture, or go onto someone's payroll?

Making life harder for Alex Jones, making him start again with nothing, is quite a satisfying thing to do for many counter-parties here.

What is hard? He can spin up a new YouTube channel in a day

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#903

Post by djfobbz »

pahool wrote: post #889
djfobbz wrote: post #770

I hate to burst everyone’s bubble, but this is fake news. This deal is not final. The judge in the liquidation case is holding an evidentiary hearing next week to understand how and why secret bidding was set up and why it was not open to the general public. Sounds like a BIG loss for The Onion, not to mention the potential defamation cases that could arise from news outlets publishing an unverified story about a sal…

do you have a source other than a tweet from the Twitter account of a political hack?

https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/judge-onion-infowars-h...

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#904

Post by CoastalCoder »

binarymax wrote: post #15

I really can’t imagine a better steward. Truly amazing. I doubt there’s any way to undo all the damage that has been done, but at least we’ll get some cathartic laughs out of it all.

> I really can’t imagine a better steward.

You're probably right. But here's my alternates list:

- The Simpsons writing team

- Jimmy Kimmel (maybe)

- Conan O'Brien

- Stephen Colbert

- a deep fake of Alex Jones, scripted by a bunch of giggling 6th grade boys

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#905

Post by randomdata »

dktoao wrote: post #886
randomdata wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories. In what way? I still only see the very same industry-focused information that I first started using Twitter for. If anything, X has improved in pulling in information from more industry players than I was seeing before, so I consider it to be an even more compelling product now. But perhaps that same algorithm improvement…

Make a burner account and log in to it. You will see what the parent comment is talking about.

Implying that is how people use X? Continually creating new burner accounts, not giving "the algorithm" what it needs to provide what they really want to see? Seems unlikely.

I suspect those who complain it is a "right wing" echo chamber are using longstanding accounts and actually engaging with "right wing" content, which trains "the algorithm" of their preference to see more of the same. Anecdotally, those I know who complain of "right wing" echo chambers are also the first people to gorge on "right wing" media to see what "they" are up to.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#906

Post by CoastalCoder »

lynndotpy wrote: post #585

At the time the news of the Sandy Hook shooting broke, I was a highschooler in a vo-tech school in Connecticut. Friday in late December are usually unserious days in K-12! People had their sights set on winter break and work was thin. But I remember that day had a lot of commotion, a lot of seriousness, and then a lot of silence. Being a vo-tech school, we had students from all over the state. Some kids left or were…

I'm sorry about all that.

Hearing about Sandy Hook truthers, and seeing the outcome of the recent US elections, has really shaken my assumptions about how typical people think and process information.

I don't assume that I'm immune from this, or that I'm my not in some media bubble. But it's saddening regardless.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#907

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

graemep wrote: post #878
arethuza wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Deep supranational political and economic union" really doesn't have the same ring to it.

Just call it a country and be done with it. It has a parliament, a flag (adopted - its the flag of Europe originated by the Council of Europe), a national anthem (likewise adopting a well known piece of music) and a de facto constitution (it was essentially PR move to drop plans to call it a constitution - the substance did not change).

Interestingly enough, none of those things are required for a country. That said, a 1-member local branch of the disney fan club might have all 3, and we wouldn't consider it to be a country.

Having a majority of countries recognize you as a country is pretty much all that's required, if that.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#908

Post by CoastalCoder »

mportela wrote: post #875
lynndotpy wrote: post #585

At the time the news of the Sandy Hook shooting broke, I was a highschooler in a vo-tech school in Connecticut. Friday in late December are usually unserious days in K-12! People had their sights set on winter break and work was thin. But I remember that day had a lot of commotion, a lot of seriousness, and then a lot of silence. Being a vo-tech school, we had students from all over the state. Some kids left or were…

> I saw my mom gradually become a Sandy Hook "truther" as she fell deep down Facebook rabbitholes. It was bad. Although she eventually came around (...) Mind sharing how she came around? My dad fell a similar hole but I haven't been able to rescue him yet.

I'm not in his camp, but trying to play Devil's Advocate for your benefit:

Are you sure that your arguments are more solid than his?

E.g., are you and he both relying on outside source of information, which neither of you have the time / resources / motivation to verify?

And if so, are you and he just assigning different levels of trust in a given source?

When I've been in situations slightly similar to yours, I was disheartened to realize that my own justifications weren't as solid as I originally thought.

That is, I was still pretty well convinced of my own position, but I realized that the main reason for it was a judgment call and intuition, rather than an unassailable argument.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#909

Post by rswail »

soco wrote: post #44
arethuza wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Brexit taught me anything it was that the correct phrase is pesky unelected EU bureaucrats!

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?

In the UK (and other places like NZ/AU), public servants are permanent. They're not elected in any way.

So they are employees of their departments and don't change when a minister changes. Ministers are almost always a member of Parliament and appointed by the Prime Minister, so they can change at any time.

Usually a government will have some changes at the top of departments (the "Permanent Secretary") and high level executives, but that's also a "change of government to another party" event.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#910

Post by randomdata »

wsintra2022 wrote: post #896
randomdata wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories. In what way? I still only see the very same industry-focused information that I first started using Twitter for. If anything, X has improved in pulling in information from more industry players than I was seeing before, so I consider it to be an even more compelling product now. But perhaps that same algorithm improvement…

Just yesterday the Guardian newspaper put out a statement saying they will no longer be posting to x/twitter cause it’s gone down the toilet. https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-n...

Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies. Good on them for realizing and backing away, I guess, but won't they still feed other platforms? It does not appear that they are willing to halt production on that realization. Not to mention that this encourages others to still share their content on X, defeating the whole intent of no longer posting... The story doesn't add up.

On second thought, this is clearly an advertisement disguised as news trying to latch onto searches for Twitter/X. They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place. X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out, like the aforementioned industry practitioners sharing what they are doing in industry.

Post reply on HN