• Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was laughing at the onion article and stopped- was that really published in 1998 ?!?!? Or is the date also a joke?

      • hobovision@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It reads like it's from 98. The references to Blockbuster, Daimler-Chrysler, McDonnell Douglas, and Bill Clinton tipped me off this was an old one.

      • MangoKangaroo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wikipedia says that The Onion has had a website since '96, so it's definitely possible! (Also, TIL The Onion has existed since 1988.)

        • Mothra@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I knew the onion is old, but didn't imagine they would keep a website with old articles still up!

          • wim@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why not? It costs nothing, appart from transforming the old format into something the current site can work with, or more likely, have the old site support tbe old format.

            • Mars@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Some media organizations have started nuking old articles to please the Google algorithm

      • Phroon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It really is that old. According to their Supreme Court amicus brief: “Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.” Seriously though, read that brief. It’s a masterful piece of satire.

    • Goronmon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      It's hard to block mergers based on a company involved being a monopoly if none of the companies involved are monopolies or will become monopolies.

      Regulators have to come up with a different set of rules to block "large but not monopolistic mergers" without also just effectively protecting the actual leader in a given industry from competition.