I'm not sure the I'd go with the name "The On1on". It seems too close to trademark infringement. An alternative off the top of my head is "The Un-ion" (as in "un-" + "Onion") but it's hard to distinguish from "union" (as in "trade union"). "The Garlic", anyone?
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.
As a quick backstory: This is a mashup between /r/nottheonion, google image search, and The Onion's CSS. Pretty crazy what a little styling can do to the way your brain interprets information!
This adds another DNS lookup, which will slow down your page load times. Also, it is essentially leaching the bandwidth from theonion.com. However, if your users are already readers of theonion.com, the static files may be cached.
Because if the onion goes down, so does your site. Because the onion can take the link down just to mess with you. Because the onion gets owned, or feels like it, they can have "fun" with your users and your site.
Edit: its only a bad idea if you care about the integrity of your site, for something like this it probably doesn't matter.
Besides what everyone else said, hotlinking other people's resources has been considered bad form since the early days of the Web, and its legality is questionable as well.
I've been around since the early days of the web and I never understood why other people decided it ought to be bad form. You put it out there to be downloaded, why shouldn't people download it?
And yet there is no technical difference. Browsing is downloading. It seems strange to make up non-technical rules about when downloading a piece of data is or is not OK. 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.
I understand that this idea has gained currency over the last decade, but I still don't understand or agree with it.
There is a huge technical difference between downloading your own copy of a file that you then serve to your visitors and pointing all your traffic at somebody else's server. No engineer in the world would look at those two plans and say, "Eh, I can't tell any difference."
> 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.
Wait. What? Am I misunderstanding you, or are you seriously suggesting that someone wanting to direct people's web browsers to some interesting resource ought to copy the bits onto their own server, thereby potentially violating the creator's copyright, instead of simply pointing people at the original file?
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.
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 cannot be a violation of copyright, since no copy occurs. Site A tells browser B where to find a resource on Site C. Site A sends zero bytes of the actual resource to browser B. Site A does not have a copy of the resource. Instead, the resource continues to live on the server under the control of the copyright holder. Browser B then contacts site C, asks for the resource, and site C voluntarily sends those bits. There is no on server A, server A does not transmit a copy to browser B, and therefore there can be no copyright violation.
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.
A complex society relies on people avoiding stepping on one anothers' toes. You can't always rely on the Refer[r]er header to block access to resources, either.
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.
Think of it this way. What would happen if Google, facebook, or twitter hotlinked to a large file on your site and you received no revenue from it? If that didn't make sense, the cliffs notes version is that you'll end up with a gigantic bill from your hosting provider and a DOS'ed site. That's why it's bad form to hot link without permission. It's a rule that's developed over time in response to stuff like this. Also, it's a two way street. Many sites will black list referrers from sites that do a lot of hotlinking as its a really common spam tactic.
In addition to the other answers, I'd like to add that's it's not very friendly. Why should The Onion have to pay for the bandwidth to host your stylesheet? They pay for every time someone visits your site.
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.
Hi. I actually work as a developer at The Onion. Given the conversation we just had, I'd say that it seems like you're not in "our circles".
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.
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!
I get that this was rushed, etc. But it's not like you did a soft launch to test this thing out, or that you're on some kind of deadline here. You built the site lazily and rudely (in my opinion), and then immediately began promotion of it.
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.
Well it sounds like at this point an apology is the best I can offer, as what is done is done -- Sorry! If you or anyone on your team is ever in Boston I'll gladly buy you a beer!
I'll be looking into it -- if it is copyright infringement I believe this is fair use (parody, non-profit, academic, etc.). If it isn't fair use than this is actually a really interesting part of copyright law (e.g. using a premium font will make it more difficult for others to perform satire on your work).
I'm sorry, but as an actual member of this community, I find your objections a bit ridiculous. I, personally, keep everything I do on my local network, but I like it when people do these "Show HN" pieces.
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.
Regarding fonts: it's not the Onion you really have to worry about, but the actual owner of the fonts. That's who is going to come after you for copyright infringement.
I hear you and I applaud just about anybody who builds just about anything.
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.
Well, the big concern is that those look like cache files, which means they could just go away at any second. In the rush to launch I didn't care, but I should be more careful / make the change before that link just dies.
They can trivially swap out that file for their choice of stuff you don't want on your website. They can do it for every 1/1000 requests so you don't know wtf is going on. They can use the host header to only do this to your website. They can simply delete it and your content is gone.
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)
Absolutely! We have some contacts at the organization and are hoping they will lean towards finding this amusing rather than finding this offensive (although what a story that would be ;) ) || if they don't like it they will let us know!
When brainstorming website ideas lately, I find myself often thinking "well shit, that could just as well be a subreddit." Probably not a very productive attitude.
Why do the links take me to the actual onion site? Let's say I visit your site. Then I am viewing real news that looks fake (i.e. just poor and sensationalist journalism). But once I click an article at the top, I'm taken to the real onion site - with fake news that looks real. With the sites looking the same, I might not notice I've changed to the real onion...
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.
I'm not ok with this. Watch the trademark. I'm not even talking about litigation -- just not ok with people willing to trade on another company's name.
He's not making a parody of the trademark. He's making a parody of their site, and representing it with their trademark. As a random visitor of the site, I could easily mistake this as the 'real onion'.
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.
This is such troll-fodder. I'm not even a militant atheist, and still just looking at the front page pisses me off. That and the design, which jars my brain and hurts my eyes.
The Video, Politics, Sports, Business and Entertainment links point to theonion.com. I suggest that you change this. An Onion dev already posted that he had considered screwing with your site when it was using the Onion's CSS. If they did want to screw with your site (or its visitors) it would be easy for them to redirect anyone that clicked one of those links (giving them a referer from your site) to someplace unexpected.
The threat of changing their CSS to mess with your site reminded me of something a Web 1.0 trolling site did to people who linked to images on their site, causing an unnecessary load on their server. The images that were linked to were usually put in (a third party's) forum signatures. So the site owners would replace the original image with a copy that had a different file name, and change the image at the original uri to something obscene. This would usually lead to the bandwidth leech being banned from his forum for linking to obscene images.
You should fix the top links (Video, Politics, Sports, Business, Science, Tech, Entertainment, and Breaking) so that they don't take you to the real Onion.
Having a site that 50% links to the real onion, and otherwise is a real site branded like the Onion makes this very confusing for the user. It could be easily mistaken as the real Onion rather than being obviously a joke.
How is it childish and reactionary? They're headlines you can imagine seeing on The Onion, but are legit; it's harmless and a touch amusing. It's just riffing off The Onion's style of presenting content.
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.
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).
The point of this project is the blunt comparison to The Onion -- it is using reality to create a parody of a parody of reality. In other words, 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.
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.