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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#681

Post by rusk »

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…

Satire is not a tool for change. In fact the opposite as laughter sublimates the emotions that would otherwise lead to action (cf Orwell’s 1984).

However people are not always in a position to change things and satire can be a useful outlet for venting, but culturally can also be good for providing talking points.

Southpark and the Onion strike a chord with me the others less so, I think because they believe that they are agents for change.

I love John Oliver though. He follows up his rants with some sensible ideas sometimes. Not everyone’s cup of tea though for sure.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#682

Post by maxerickson »

tailrecursion wrote: post #666
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Musk's acquisition of Twitter, it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories. And Alex Jones' InfoWars and Elon Musk's Twitter are both likely to show you advertisements for supplements of dubious effectiveness and other generally scammy products. So yeah, Jones fits right in there.

I take it that left wingers feel that "community notes" isn't effective or sufficient to combat right wing beliefs that are wrong? The people on the right seem satisfied for now that they can "combat misinformation with more information". (That's a misquote by the way, I believe he said better information, not more. On second thought, he may have said it both ways.) Has anyone discussed why the right believes this ca…

The problem isn't "beliefs that are wrong", the problem is that it's Calvinball.

Say something happened, they'll say you don't have proof.

Show proof that it happened, they'll say it isn't a big deal.

Demonstrate a negative consequence, they'll say it's an isolated incident.

Show that it happens a lot, they'll say the victims deserve it.

And so on. Of course I don't have any proof.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#683

Post by tecoholic »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #625

In one sense this is funny, in another it's justice, but I think from a broader perspective this is just more of the same tit-for-tat nonsense that moves the needle in the wrong direction. My hypothesis is that the U.S. didn't become more divided because of moron sites like I.W. but rather because of our collective reaction to them. These groups are far easier to ignore when we stop trying to silence them.

I get the broader point of eye-for-an-eye.. but in this case how are people supposed to ignore when the harm done is very real and very cruel? These groups don’t want to operate in their own little corner of the world. They will up the ante until they gain notoriety and the attention they want, which enables them to make the money they want. The collective reaction is all but guaranteed, I would argue and it’s not because people want to silence morons, but to limit harm.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#684

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

slt2021 wrote: post #445
seanw444 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even your average Elon hater, and I still think X is a stupid name. Dude should've just kept the name and brand that everyone knows already.

old good ole Twitter was when your feed was only those you followed. new X is when your feed what Elon wants you to see and react to.

This is misleading.

At the top of the feed, there are two tabs: "For you" and "Following". If you select "Following", then you only see people you follow.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#685

Post by [deleted] »

jfengel wrote: post #650
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #625

In one sense this is funny, in another it's justice, but I think from a broader perspective this is just more of the same tit-for-tat nonsense that moves the needle in the wrong direction. My hypothesis is that the U.S. didn't become more divided because of moron sites like I.W. but rather because of our collective reaction to them. These groups are far easier to ignore when we stop trying to silence them.

I don't think the causation runs either direction. At most, I'd say that a site like InfoWars reflects the division, rather than either causing it or being caused by it. Divisiveness in the US goes much deeper than that, and long predates both the Internet and that kind of radio program. You could perhaps pick the early 70s as a starting point, with the US deeply divided by Vietnam and Civil Rights, at exactly the sa…

[deleted]

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#686

Post by dmonitor »

slt2021 wrote: post #445
seanw444 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even your average Elon hater, and I still think X is a stupid name. Dude should've just kept the name and brand that everyone knows already.

old good ole Twitter was when your feed was only those you followed. new X is when your feed what Elon wants you to see and react to.

Twitter stopped doing the "follower feed" thing for years before Elon bought the website. The propaganda has gotten much worse, but let's not pretend Twitter wasn't widely considered the worst website on the face of the planet (except Facebook) even before Elon took over

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#687

Post by superfrank »

barbazoo wrote: post #553
oddevan wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this seems like a clear-cut "We want justice, not money" decision. We don't know how much the families gave up (could be a little, could be significant), but whatever it was was the difference between Infowars remaining what it is or utterly destroying Infowars' credibility. Because now the Wikipedia entry is going to say "parody site" at the top.

> We don't know how much the families gave up (could be a little, could be significant) It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes but as a parent I can imagine the money not playing an important factor at all in this. Money would hopefully be the least of my worries.

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 ruling (or at least take something of value from Jones).

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#690

Post by AI_beffr »

joezydeco wrote: post #262
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?)

This seems like an incredible opportunity to see if it's possible to reprogram InfoWars readers away from the hate and the conspiracy theories. It would be a massive undertaking but wouldn't it be funny if the savior of modern media turned out to be a student newspaper from Madison, Wisconsin?

what is the difference, really, between the way the word "hate" is used now and the they the word "sin" was used 200 years ago?
Post reply on HN