| ▲ | pogue 5 hours ago |
| Seems like it's still not theirs until a judge signs off on it. That sale was scuttled by a bankruptcy court. Now, The Onion has re-emerged with a new plan: licensing the website from Gregory Milligan, the court-appointed manager of the site. On Monday, Mr. Milligan asked Maya Guerra Gamble, a judge in Texas’s Travis County District Court overseeing the disposition of Infowars, to approve that licensing agreement in a court filing. Under the terms, The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, would pay $81,000 a month to license Infowars.com and its associated intellectual property — such as its name — for an initial six months, with an option to renew for another six months. The licensing deal has been agreed to by The Onion and the court-appointed administrator. But it is not effective until Judge Gamble approves it, and Mr. Jones could appeal any ruling. That means the fate of Infowars remains in limbo until the court rules, probably sometime in the next two weeks. Mr. Jones continues to operate Infowars.com and host its weekday program, “The Alex Jones Show.” The Onion Has a New Plan to Take Over Infowars
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/20/business/infowars-alex-jo... |
|
| ▲ | fmbb 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I can’t believe this. I saw OP and went to infowars dot com to have a look. I scrolled a bit, clicked some links, looked at the store, had a good laugh at the comedy of this ironic site. Now you’re telling me the site is not a joke from The Onion? Reality is stranger than fiction. |
| |
| ▲ | troped2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | My favorite headlines: "Video: ‘Homophobic’ 6-Week-Old Baby Cries After Gay Dad Tells Him ‘There Is No Mama’" "UK Approves Bills To Remove Criminal Penalties For Women Who Commit Their Own Abortions" "Nigerian Photographed Killing Cat And Trying To Cook It In Front Of Children’s Playground In Italy" | | |
| ▲ | logifail 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 6-Week-Old Baby I appreciate this story appears to be all about the rage-bate headlines, but I don't believe that either six-week old babies say "Mama" (with purpose) or that a baby that age would be capable of responding in the way described to an adult saying "there is no Mama". It doesn't work like that at that age. [Source: have three kids] | | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | like_any_other 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Source: the video: https://x.com/OliLondonTV/status/2045335697893269640 Edit: but it is likely the baby is older than 6 weeks in that video - this seems to be the source of confusion (read carefully - the 6-week-old video was a different, older video): In December, when Texson was 6 weeks old, he shared a video with the text overlay “6 week old homophobic baby,” which was viewed more than 36 million times. In that video, Texson smiles in response to being told he has a sister, a brother and puppies but frowns when McAnally says that he has two dads. In the most recent video McAnally has shared, Texson laughs and says the sound “ma ma ma,” when asked if he wants “dada or pop.” Later on, in the video, he cries and looks frustrated." - https://www.newsweek.com/entertainment/shane-mcanally-video-... Of course, getting stuck on if they got the age of the baby wrong is throwing out the baby with the bathwater - the main thrust of the story is true. | | |
| ▲ | logifail an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > In that video, Texson smiles in response to being told he has a sister, a brother and puppies but frowns when McAnally says that he has two dads [Apologies for being somewhat absolutist about this, but...] babies do not (typically) understand the literal meaning of words - or indeed understand language generally - at 6 weeks. They may understand tone, but not words. Again, rage bait headlines and all that. > Of course, getting stuck on if they got the age of the baby wrong Was hoping to provide useful data for any readers who may be here to "gratify their intellectual curiosity"* that certain claims referenced in this thread are ... implausible ... and that's putting it mildly. * this is HN ;) | |
| ▲ | logifail 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "6-Week-Old" babies don't have the muscle strength to hold their heads horizontally like that (and IMHO it would be foolhardy to wave them around like that)... Pronounced social smiling (as in the video) already by six weeks would also pretty unusual. | | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond an hour ago | parent [-] | | Hah yes, many years I got into a debate with someone here or was it Reddit about the "intuitiveness of iOS" and someone claiming "I've handed my iPad to my 3 month old and they are able to swipe and navigate"... No, your baby typically needs to be propped up to sit at that age. They simply don't have that fine motor control and coordination, let alone the comprehension of whatever app you put in front of them. |
| |
| ▲ | Throaway8675456 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So a Mr. McAnally told his son he has two dads? Sounds beleivable. |
| |
| ▲ | weirdmantis69 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I bet a 6 week old baby is looking for its mom and letting men adopt it is child abuse. |
| |
| ▲ | arrowsmith 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm not sure what point you're making but there's nothing satirical about the second headline. The UK really did just legislate to decriminalise abortion up to the point of birth. I don't see how that's a laughing matter. | | |
| ▲ | kuerbel 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is simply not true. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/03/27/misleading-hea... | | |
| ▲ | DoctorOetker an hour ago | parent [-] | | TLDR: not legalised in the wider sense that any doctors or institutions involved with the abortion can perform the abortion until arbitrary late, but DOES remove liability from the pregnant women. So in case her abortion is aided or abetted those people are still criminally liable, but if she does it on her own somehow, then it is in fact legalised by the recent change. So, it depends on the situation, and if the mother is the sole actor or not. If she is the sole actor, it seems abortion has been arbitrarily legalized according to kuerbels' link. This also makes it important that people like kuerbel disseminate such a correction: the platitude that all abortions are now legalized would send the wrong message / legal advice to any accomplices in the abortion, even if the mother can do this with impunity, if you aid or abet her in it you can be held liable! |
|
| |
| ▲ | troped2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Afghani Arrested On Suspicion Of Raping Goats In France" "Trump Anticipates Chinese Leader “Will Give Me A Big, Fat Hug”" "Photos Of A Cucumber & Ron Paul Playing Baseball Massively Ratio Netanyahu & Mark Levin On X" | | |
| ▲ | GaryBluto 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > "Trump Anticipates Chinese Leader “Will Give Me A Big, Fat Hug”" To be fair, he did. |
| |
| ▲ | Anthony-G an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also: > Trump Responds To Controversial Image Of Himself As Jesus, Says It Actually Depicted Him As A Doctor & Slams “Fake News” For The Misinterpretation Had I not already heard this story via the mainstream media on this side of the Atlantic, this could easily be another satirical headline. With Trump as President, Poe’s law now covers reporting on facts – not just expressions of opinion. | |
| ▲ | at-fates-hands 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | - The video of the baby has been widely circulated on social media. The same couple also posted a video of them saying the baby looked at them in a "homophobic" way. People in the comments said they should "Just throw the baby away." - The UK bill is real:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511/stages/18040/amendmen... This new clause would disapply existing criminal law related to the accessing or provision of abortion care from women acting in relation to their own pregnancy at any gestation, ensuring no woman would be liable for a prison sentence as a result of seeking to end her own pregnancy. It would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including but not limited to the time limit, the grounds for abortion, or the requirement for two doctors’ approval. - The video of the Nigerian has also been making the rounds on social media and has not been debunked as an ai generated fake. There are both images and video of the incident. Not really sure why you would post this sarcastically when all you had to do was a ten second google search to confirm none of these are cringe worthy, tinfoil hat conspiracies. | | |
| ▲ | bot403 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They are indeed cringe worthy. Even my four year old cries when his spoon is the wrong kind of spoon. This does not make him spoon-phobic. It means he is a kid who has no control of his emotions. A baby has even less understanding. Everyone who is debating the homophobia of the baby is projecting. | | | |
| ▲ | malicka 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it’s pretty obvious that the cringe-worthy part is the story-selection. To refer to anoyher headline, do they run a story every time some Englishman fucks a goat? No, of course not; it’s only newsworthy if it’s [minority you should hate]. That’s cringeworthy. | | | |
| ▲ | Bengalilol 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Now, what would you think of a website with such headlines? | |
| ▲ | like_any_other 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do you think learning that 3/3 stories they thought were so ridiculous they were obviously fake, were in fact real, will cause them to reconsider their view of the world in any way? | |
| ▲ | striking 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | nslsm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t see what’s so funny about them, especially the last one. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | shagie 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Unlocked link for the NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/20/business/infowars-alex-jo... |
|
| ▲ | pityJuke 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I’m surprised they’ve said it so confidently given how it completely collapsed last time… |
| |
| ▲ | shagie 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I believe its because its a different structure. Previously, they were trying to buy the assets outright. That got into the "one group of families is owned $1.4 billion and another is owned $50 million" and the "how do you maximize the returns from Alex Jones assets to satisfy those claims?" This is using a different structure. > On Monday, Mr. Milligan asked Maya Guerra Gamble, a judge in Texas’s Travis County District Court overseeing the disposition of Infowars, to approve that licensing agreement in a court filing. Under the terms, The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, would pay $81,000 a month to license Infowars.com and its associated intellectual property — such as its name — for an initial six months, with an option to renew for another six months. They're not buying it - they're licensing it from the victims families instead. | |
| ▲ | anon84873628 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well, that's an example of exactly the type of media outlet they're trying to create! | |
| ▲ | michaelt 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Consider the fact this is a satirical news website; a fictional CEO; an imaginary corporation; and it literally proposes a vision of "Not just ads, but scams! Not just scams, but lies with no object [...] A digital platform where, every day, visitors sacrifice themselves at altars of delusion and misery" I'm surprised you're surprised. | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think it's a good PR move. "Hey, look at how reasonable we've been in spite of the legal craziness. We've put money on the table and are moving forward with a plan that benefits everyone." Now anyone who blocks the plan will be seen as the problem. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | andrewflnr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Nothing can stop us now that we’re in charge of a website. Somehow I don't think the confidence is meant to be taken at exactly face value. |
|
| ▲ | GaryBluto 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Seems like it's still not theirs until a judge signs off on it. Does that mean their use of the branding and claims of ownership could be illegal or would it be covered under the first ammendment? |
|
| ▲ | scottyah 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Misinformation is funny now! This is all part of the joke- they were a funny fake news site that bought an unfunny fake news site, now their fake news doesn't need to be funny and that's what makes it funny. Maybe you're not highbrow enough for this... |
