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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#191

Post by dmix »

reaperducer wrote: post #173
Maken wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't you seen the DOGE department yet?

Haven't you seen the DOGE department yet? How do you make government smaller? Step 1: Make government bigger by inventing a new department! (Strictly speaking, it's not a government department. It is a private entity that will operate outside the government, and influence the president. What could possibly go wrong?)

> It is a private entity that will operate outside the government, and influence the president. What could possibly go wrong?

National Science Board is an external advisory board to the US gov. There's tons of examples of this sort of thing, especially in education and science.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#192

Post by vman81 »

lenerdenator wrote: post #67
rightbyte wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the article is really gleeful. Somewhat ironic since The Onion could be brought down in the same way by defamation lawsuits.

> Somewhat ironic since The Onion could be brought down in the same way by defamation lawsuits. Unlikely. It's worth remembering that Jones was never actually tried for defamation. He instead received a default judgment. In the US, both sides of a civil case have the right to a fair and speedy trial. If there's delays, you had better have a good reason for them and they need to fit the rules of procedure. Jones and h…

Jones' lawyers at one point forwarded a full phone dump of Jones' phone by accident to opposing council. They of course notified Jones' lawyers immediately to ask if this was a mistake that they should delete/disregard, as was their right. Jones' lawyers promptly ignored this, or didn't understand what was going on, resulting it becoming fair game after X days had passed. This goody bag of text messages and pictures contradicted several points of Jones' defence regarding who he was communicating with and a bunch of incriminating evidence that wasn't produced during discovery. That was my understanding of that episode, I may have misunderstood parts of it. Oh, and they revealed this when Jones was on the stand, and it is available to view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC9RiRUF21A

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#194

Post by afavour »

nixdev wrote: post #175
sed_zeppelin wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a whim, I decided to peek at the InfoWars homepage. At this moment, I cannot determine which of the headlines are genuine InfoWars content and which are the product of Onion writers. (I assume it's genuine due to the recency of the sale closing?)

[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.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#195

Post by anotherhue »

nixdev wrote: post #150
rightbyte wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and he profits from fooling mentally ill people. Selling homeopatic pills and whatever. But I think the right to be wrong is way more important than getting at Alexander Jones. The precedent is bad.

[flagged]

Which part do you think is made up?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-a...

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#196

Post by rob74 »

arethuza wrote: post #16
tgv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonderful news. I'm glad their CEO recognizes the great value of CEOs. My only worry is that this acquisition makes Global Tetraeder so large that it attracts the attention of those pesky EU bureaucrats, who will want to split it up into multiple imperfect solids.

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

Beware the EU deep (super)state! But don't fear, it's no match for our shallow catchphrases!

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#198

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

rightbyte wrote: post #113
lenerdenator wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somewhat ironic since The Onion could be brought down in the same way by defamation lawsuits. Unlikely. It's worth remembering that Jones was never actually tried for defamation. He instead received a default judgment. In the US, both sides of a civil case have the right to a fair and speedy trial. If there's delays, you had better have a good reason for them and they need to fit the rules of procedure. Jones and h…

Fair enough. I didn't know it was a walkover in the end. And it is not really surprising there was no sane defence. I believe Info Wars etc becoming big is pretty much a symptom rather than the problem. And it has escalated lately. I fear that they will be used as excuses for getting at others.

the problem was that it was profitable.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#199

Post by dionian »

AdamN wrote: post #126
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

Alex Jones using Twitter/X is on-brand.

I don't understand your point

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#200

Post by lucianbr »

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…

> You become a public worker through exam, and the representative usually have no power over your nomination, raises, etc.

Who else would have power over "nomination, raises etc" of anyone, if not elected representatives? Other public workers? At this point would they not be a sovereign group distinct from France, untouchable by the french people?

I guess the elected representatives have indirect power over everything in the end, if France is still a democracy. May be lots of layers of indirection, like the need to pass or change a law, but still.

Who defines and administers the exam you mentioned? Other public representatives? Can they decide to pass their relatives?

Post reply on HN