Show HN: Like The Onion, But Real
theon1on.com
theon1on.com
Edit: I'd better let you judge what sounds nice.
Edit 2: Hmm. Let's try my Rebrand-O-Matic:
On1on — On-1-on — 1-on-1 — Ioni — iOni.
You can illustrate it with a sleek iPhone-like icon of an oni (a Japanese demon) holding an onion.
http://ioni.io is available for $50, which may or may not be too much for this project.
More seriously, though, http://allium.org is available for $10.69 from NameCheap. "Allium" is the Latin name of the genus to which onion and garlic belong.
EDIT: oops, you're OP. Ever thought of suggesting this CSS to reddit?
Worth noting that I have reached out to the mods of /nottheonion to let them know about it and ask if they would like anything else done (since the only reason this doesn't suck is because of their community)
<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.theonion.com/static/CACHE/css/2903347c3113.css" type="text/css" media="all">Edit: its only a bad idea if you care about the integrity of your site, for something like this it probably doesn't matter.
I understand that this idea has gained currency over the last decade, but I still don't understand or agree with it.
> If The Onion has a problem with the amount of data they are serving, perhaps they should configure their server to reject those requests; putting the onus on the end user not to issue HTTP GET unless a certain non-technical context exists seems.... odd.
No clue what you're talking about. For one, we're talking about website creators here rather than end users, and it's these website creators' failure to issue an HTTP GET that's considered bad manners.
I understand that other people have made up this idea that "hotlinking" is bad, but it never made any sense to me and I never got on board that train. People "hotlink" stuff off my blog all the time and I think that's great. I put the photos up there to be looked at; if people want to share them, I read that as a sign that I took a good photo. If I wanted to stop people from looking at my photos in certain ways - when the referer comes from a site other than my own, for example - then I would configure my web server not to serve out the bits under those conditions.
If the Onion doesn't want to serve out their CSS file under certain conditions, they should configure their server not to serve the bits under those conditions. If the Onion chooses instead to configure their web server to serve the bits to anyone who asks for them, people should feel free to ask for them.
But it's not "people" asking for them, it's one specific site causing browsers to ask for them unwittingly. Embedding images is less egregious if attributed correctly, but still discourteous and possibly a violation of copyright unless it is encouraged by the site.
However, hotlinking CSS is essentially copyright violation (for lifting the design wholesale, essentially creating a derivative work). There is simply no excuse for not writing and hosting your own CSS.
As the others have said, when hotlinking/embedding, you are profiting from another system's bandwidth and storage resources. Why don't I just hook up your water tap to my house? You should have put a lock on it if you didn't want it to be used for that purpose.
I must point out that hijacking resources from another server is in strong contrast to scraping for personal use, whitehat research, etc. It's one thing to send arbitrary HTTP requests to a server that will answer them. It's another entirely to cause others' browsers to do so without permission, especially in a way that is not explicitly announced and attributed, or accrues to your benefit at the other server's expense.
It doesn't make any sense to me to get all worked up about "rude behavior". The internet is full of people who want to break into your box and take over your system. If you have a server facing the internet you have to expect that people are going to be ruder than you ever dreamed possible, and they are going to do this all the time. Complaining about it won't change anything; just fix your server so it doesn't do things you don't want it to do. I understand that there's this whole big social thing about "hotlinking" which has grown up now, and I've heard all the reasons people use for it, I just look around at the state of the internet and think it's a trivial thing to worry about. Just fix your config and get on with life. Browbeating someone else for using resources which are advertised and provided to the public for free seems like an amazing waste of time.
Just don't freaking do it. It pisses people off to no productive end (as opposed to personal scraping, whitehat access, etc., which also piss people off, but serve a useful purpose).
Also, copyright provides more rights to creators than just restricting copies and distribution. There are also public performance rights, which I would argue are violated by embedding another site's resources into your own site without permission.
But, it should never be a step (baby or otherwise) to completely take someone else's work. It's one thing to take cues from them. It's another thing to literally take their code without permission, even if it is "only CSS". That is really, really poor form from the start.
If you don't think so, then try asking The Onion if they mind. Then you can have a clear conscience.
But, if you are unwilling to even ask, well, then you really don't have to. You already know it's not cool.
BTW, good luck with it.
But regardless! As I mention in another place on this thread: The point of this project is the blunt comparison to The Onion -- the copying of the name, look, and feel of a well known and well recognized satirical publication is actually a vital part of the statement about our world and the media.
Honestly, I think this idea is pretty cool, but just ripping off our CSS and HTML seems a little scummy. Not only that, but the fact that you were initially hotlinking our static media makes it seems like this is a bit of a lazy effort (let it be noted: you're still hotlinking a lot of media—now it's just from other sites). I'm actually a little sad that you stopped hotlinking our css, because we were already working on another stylesheet to mess with you.
Beyond that, you're using our fonts. These are not free web fonts. They are fonts that we paid a good deal of money to be able to use legally on our site, and they are definitely not authorized for use on yours.
Bottom line: cool idea, not OK execution.
Sorry I missed the boat on letting you have fun with the CSS (I'd be glad to point it back if you would enjoy it!) But yes, this was built in a few hours and most of that time was spent playing with caching and deployment. Not so much "lazy" as "rushed." (considering this is for the lulz, I'm OK with it being called rushed.)
So yes, to be clear, this was a "lets have quick fun and make a satirical mashup" not a "lets spend a week designing a web site that looks like The Onion." Not sure where scum comes into play given that fact, but I'm sorry if the project pissed anyone off over there. In my experience different people react to détournement in different ways when they are the ones being shifted around.
As for the circles, you're right about not us being in touch with the dev teams over there.
Regarding fonts, noted; I'll wait and see if there is a formal response from The Onion on these fronts but you clearly know the first-hand vibe -- if that's upsetting people I can remove them.
As for the other media we're aware of that and will be making a move soon, THERE ARE ONLY SO MANY FINGERS ON A HAND!
Also, you state that you only spent a few hours, and that "most of that time was spent playing with caching and deployment". If you were spending time making sure that the site was cached and performant, it seems less like the hotlinking was an oversight, and more like it was something you just didn't care about.
If you would have taken another few hours, made sure that your ducks were in a row, and THEN began promoting it, you'd be in much better shape right now, and I wouldn't be commenting here.
As for the circles, if you don't know anyone on the dev team, why are you repeatedly claiming to have a tacit OK from us?
As to the fonts, I want to be clear: your current use of the fonts is infringement. We have paid to license those fonts for use on our site. You have not done this, and so you're now infringing--not against us, but against the owners of those fonts. We're not going to come after you, I'd bet that someone will (eventually).
To summarize my position again: I'm not at all a fan of how you went about doing this, but it's honestly not a huge deal—just a bit rude.
It's almost as if you are personally paying out for the extra bandwidth this little project has caused for The Onion. This is not a commercial project, and most of the HN community is just messing around with tech to see how it works. Sometimes, people have the balls to show others, and I appreciate it. What I don't really care for is people who sign up and bitch about the derivative products of others on the basis of Intellectual Property.
My advice: Just ignore HN
P.S. I will help to compensate you for any personal financial hit you take.
Very confusing.
Also, as said before, hotlinking to another site's resources is not a good idea. At all.
Execution aside, I don't like the idea. The Onion provides well written fake news. The content that you're linking to is a poor excuse for news; its the low-hanging fruit of the internet. I couldn't see myself browsing this stuff. In fact, the reason I browse HN is to not have to deal with content like this.
And it's also questionable whether this is a parody of 'The Onion'. It seems to be a parody of world news, branded with The Onion.
Also, a quick way to avoid hot-linking the images is to use a service like Cloudinary, it will proxy them for you with little code change.
There's also http://www.ruddl.com/ as a Pinterest-Reddit mashup, but they only have a few subreddits.
http://i.imgur.com/3EYKseY.jpg
Generally those are more harm than they're worth, as nobody uses them and they annoy the user (especially since they're in the way of what I'm actually trying to read).
Or are you just saying being able to voice ones opinion without a torrent of downvotes is a step in the right direction?
I post on HN but don't have an account on Reddit, but I think pigeon-holing an entire community is more likely to be considered childish and reactionary. This isn't "our site vs your site" and some sort of tribal war. What about this site or its content has irritated you?
(Main parts of Reddit I do read are AskScience and AskHistorians and they are, for the most part, excellent. Anything but juvenile.)
Maybe a bit unprofessional. They could easily rework this to host their own CSS/images, come up with a better name (The Garlic?) and tweak the appearance a bit.
Hardly worth the slight on another community. I expect better on HN.
Aside from that minor confusion, the site's purpose is absolutely hilarious and I applaud the tongue-in-cheek approach.
But copying the name and look and feel of an existing site in so casual a manner seems very lazy and is off-putting.