22 ms·

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

• mistercheph 10mo ago
  https://archive.is/d71qC https://archive.is/d71qC
• magicalhippo 10mo ago
  I brought popcorn, who are we rooting for?
  • Larrikin 10mo ago
    The best outcome would be for all of the bids to fail, all the streaming services would bleed money due to people sick of the siloing, and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog. The second best outcome would be the cartoon villain Larry not getting what he wants.
    • nubinetwork 10mo ago
      I honestly don't think cbs paramount would be any better, if anything, wb content would be further paywalled and tiered off
      • Spivak 10mo ago
        Which is why the model that would actually be good for consumers and the model that absolutely no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Let a bunch of companies compete over being the best streaming platform and then let those companies all compete for licensing deals for content. I think a big copyright holders in a strange way actually don't want a repeat of cable. They want all content to be exclusive by default to their own streaming service.
        • andsoitis 10mo ago
          When you make something (eg TV shows), you might also want a direct relationship with your customer (eg viewer). Consequently, A platform where you get to choose how to present and celebrate the stories seems like a reasonable thing.
          • ndiddy 10mo ago
            In the US, the film industry originally worked like the streaming industry does today. Besides just creating films, the major studios distributed them through the theaters they owned. If you wanted to see a Paramount film you had to go to a Paramount owned theater, if you wanted to see an MGM film you had to go to an MGM owned theater, and so on. In 1948, this distribution scheme was ruled to be in violation of antitrust law and the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theaters. Now you can see major films in any studio and the theaters have to compete on price and amenities. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to streaming services.
            • raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
              So you want to pass a law that no one can produce content and put it on their own website?
              • magicalhippo 10mo ago
                Here in Norway we have a law for mobile carriers which is intended to prevent moats. It states that carriers must provide access for a "reasonable price" to other phone companies. It seems to have worked fairly well. One could imagine something similar, that sure you can put your own movie or TV show on your own website, but you must also sell it to companies who asks on reasonable terms. So Netflix can make a movie but couldn't say no to say Plex if they wanted to buy the rights to show it on Plex.tv.
                • raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
                  This is completely different. Cell phone infrastructure in particular is by nature a natural monopoly. Two carriers can’t operate over the same frequency and only certain frequencies are conducive for cell phones. Content has no such restriction. Are you really saying every piece of content anyone produces must be licensed? Who decides what is “reasonable”?
    • account42 10mo ago
      > and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog. That's a weird way to write "and for us to go back to owning copies of movies instead of just renting them."
      • LunaSea 10mo ago
        More and more content can't be bought at all due to streaming platforms. That's a real problem.
    • raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
      They will all go back to just licensing to Netflix. Meet the new boss…
  • aomix 10mo ago
    I want Netflix to lose. After living with their binge release schedule for however long now I think we're all worse off for it. So I want less of the industry to use it.
    • figmert 10mo ago
      You are not forced to buy their product, or to buy into their schedule.
      • almosthere 10mo ago
        Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be.
        • Jtsummers 10mo ago
          > Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be. That's kind of a silly argument. "People are better off paying $100+/month for 4+ streaming services than $25/month for one that has everything." If your argument were that you'd have to pay more than the current combined cost, it'd be a better argument against mergers. Arguing against something because it's a better deal is just strange.
          • almosthere 10mo ago
            thats not how most people do streaming, they consume everything on netflix - when the content gets stale, they cancel, move to P+, consume for a few months, stale, d+, stale, A+, etc.... 1 at a time
            • Jtsummers 10mo ago
              That's what some people do, the average household (per polling) has 4+ video service subscriptions.
  • whateveracct 10mo ago
    definitely not Ellison Jr lol
    • magicalhippo 10mo ago
      Ah that Ellison, didn't make the connection.
  • kgwxd 10mo ago
    I'm never paying any of them, anything, ever again, but I'm sure we'll all get a little fucked somehow. I do hope it triggers more in-fighting amongst the scum of the earth.
    • tombert 10mo ago
      Don't worry, no matter which way it goes, each executive will still figure out a way to give themselves hundreds of millions of dollars for their hard work.
  • lyu07282 10mo ago
    Piratebay
• walthamstow 10mo ago
  > [Paramount say Netflix deal] would lead to “a challenging regulatory approval process.” "Only we have sufficiently greased the current government to get this deal done"
  • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    They’re both at least trying to play [1]. The wild move for Ellison would be to bid for one of Trump’s crypto projects if the shareholder vote looks like it could fail. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/netflixs-sarandos-wooed-trump-personally-ahead-of-warner-bid https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/netflixs-sarandos-w...
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  • michaelbuckbee 10mo ago
    (not a joke) I wonder to what extent the ability to produce a Rush Hour 4 will effect the deal. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/25/trump-pushed-paramount-revive-rush-hour-4-reports-say.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/25/trump-pushed-paramount-reviv...
    • jaredhallen 10mo ago
      Stranger than fiction.
    • pwillia7 10mo ago
      I can't wait to see how Chris Tucker plays it
  • miohtama 10mo ago
    Trump dislikes Paramount, thought? https://deadline.com/2025/12/trump-paramount-60-minutes-david-ellison-1236641714/ https://deadline.com/2025/12/trump-paramount-60-minutes-davi...
    • jm4 10mo ago
• josefritzishere 10mo ago
  For a large enough "donation" the current administration will approve any merger.
  • grandpoobah 10mo ago
    Not even large. Trump is cheap. https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-makers-turbotax-gave-trump-210621550.html?guccounter=1 https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-makers-turbotax-gave-trum...
    • josefritzishere 10mo ago
      Maybe we're all doing it wrong. Americans could instead be making "donations" to get the legal outcomes they want under this regime. We're not accustomed to the 3rd wold paradigm though it's well established elsewhere.
      • Muromec 10mo ago
        It's a free market. Just pool some money on kickstarter and bribe the dude to make him do whatever you want. It's the new way to petition. Pool the money, buy his tokens. Make a smart contract that transfers a few mil once the law takes effect. Do you seriously need a Ukrainian to tell you how to do corruption in the year 2025 of our Lord? In US? In this economy? Don't be cheap. You can get Roe v Wade back and Kavanaught's head on a pike if you bid high enough. Independent prosecutors will for sure find a pdf file one him somewhere.
    • AndroTux 10mo ago
      FIFA just had to pay for a little trophy
      • actionfromafar 10mo ago
        The FIFA Physics Price?
• indigodaddy 10mo ago
  Does WB have to pay the breakup fee to Netflix if a Paramount hostile takeover succeeds?
  • ZeroCool2u 10mo ago
    Yeah, the reverse breakup fee is ~2.6B I believe, but the Paramount takeover doesn't have to succeed for that fee to kick in. WB just has to back out.
    • indigodaddy 10mo ago
      Right, but if it does succeed, does it then kick in?
      • semiquaver 10mo ago
        Yes
  • mcoliver 10mo ago
    Warner breakup fee is different. 2.8 billion.
  • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    It looks like it. $2.8bn by Warner Brothers to Netflix [1]. If the vote looks close, Paramount would be expected to raise their bid to cover that cost. [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000119312525309939/d45027d425.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065280/000119312525... 8.3(a)
    • dabockster 10mo ago
      The failed merger and similar clawback clause between Kroger and Albertsons is currently destroying a significant part of the supply chain for food in the Pacific Northwest. Grocery stores that have been open for 50-75 years - stores where whole neighborhoods and towns were built around - are closing forever, leaving those areas as food deserts. Either way, this entertainment merger is going to get ugly. Consumers are absolutely going to get harmed either way with that clawback clause.
• unstatusthequo 10mo ago
  I can’t even use Paramount+ at home. Have network wide ad and tracking filters on (simple NextDNS presets, nothing crazy), and while others work, Paramount+ doesn’t. Makes me wonder what they are doing to get blocked. Kind of wish neither were getting WB.
  • zamadatix 10mo ago
    Most likely as simple as "they use the same servers for content and ads/tracking so you can't block just one part as easily".
  • ssimpson 10mo ago
    I've had the same issue and go so far as to remove the streaming stuff from my Pihole to make sure it wasn't a DNS filtering issue. Paramount+ app still is sketchy as hell sometimes. Usually won't work on my AppleTV, but works on phones and stuff.
• JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  Paramount bids $30 all cash for all of Warner Brothers Discovery. Netflix bids $27.75 “for Warner’s studio and HBO Max streaming business” only [1]. (“$23.25 in cash and $4.50 in shares” [2].) The latter leaves behind “sports and news television brands around the world including CNN, TNT Sports in the U.S., and Discovery, top free-to-air channels across Europe, and digital products such as the profitable Discovery+ streaming service and Bleacher Report (B/R)” [3]. (Paramount is effectively bidding $5.9bn for these assets.) Note that Zaslav, Warner’s CEO, is a prominent donor to Democrats [4], as is Reed Hastings, Netflix’s co-founder [5]. (Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s co-CEO with Greg Peters, is mixed, leaning Dem [6]. No clue on the latter.) Ellison is a staunch Trump ally. The partisan tinge will be difficult to ignore. [1] https://www.wsj.com/business/media/paramount-makes-hostile-takeover-bid-for-warner-after-netflix-struck-deal-f03c6f3f?mod=mhp https://www.wsj.com/business/media/paramount-makes-hostile-t... [2] https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-to-acquire-warner-bros https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-to-acquire-warner-... [3] https://www.wbd.com/news/warner-bros-discovery-separate-two-leading-media-companies https://www.wbd.com/news/warner-bros-discovery-separate-two-... [4] https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=david+zaslav https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=david+... [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/reed-hastings-netflix-biden-withdraw.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/reed-hastings... [6] https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Ted+Sarandos https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Ted+Sa...
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
• CSMastermind 10mo ago
  I must be thte only one who like Paramount+ Honestly would rather have the Warner Bros content over there than on Netflix.
  • coldpie 10mo ago
    Eh, I liked it, but canceled my service after they made a bribe to the current president to approve one of their acquisitions. I like Star Trek plenty, but not enough to support anti-American businesses like Paramount.
    • silon42 10mo ago
      I subscribed to SkyShowtime (Euro joint venture from Paramount) for a few months (it was cheap) ... then I realized it doesn't work on Linux... cancelled.
    • sleepybrett 10mo ago
      Once they ended 'Lower Decks' I was out.
      • i80and 10mo ago
        Star Trek was basically the only reason for Paramount+ to exist. Once they axed Prodigy and sold season 2 to Netflix (ironic, in retrospect), the writing was on the wall.
  • noahbp 10mo ago
    The Paramount+ user interface on my Samsung TV is horrendous. It frequently crashes after displaying ads, forcing me to re-open the app and watch ads again. When watching ads does succeed (all 3 minutes of them…) and playback of my show begins, it shows the enormous pause button, the giant fade-to-black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, and covers up the subtitles, as though I had pressed ‘Play’. And trying to pause requires you to press the pause button TWICE. I tried to play a series, but instead of starting from the last-played episode + 1, it always plays the most recent episode since it’s a rewatch. This happened every time until I got caught up. So I strongly disagree. If only to be able to watch all of this content without all of frustrating design flaws. EDIT: They also end each episode with 2-3 minutes of ads. So you had to exit the show, then re-enter to not get hit with two ad breaks in a row.
• linhns 10mo ago
  Sounds like Paramount bosses are bidding in anger.
  • observationist 10mo ago
    They tilt like everyone else - maybe the chaos and mayhem behind the last few years of this industry mean the old guard is finally failing, and we'll see meaningful copyright reform and sanity in our lifetime.
    • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > and we'll see meaningful copyright reform Are you betting on the content conglomerate bidding tens of billions, or the nepo baby LBO shop wearing the corpse of a movie studio as a salmon hat to spur copyright reform?
      • awongh 10mo ago
        Paramount is dead?
        • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
          > Paramount is dead? Paramount broke its tradition of barely treading water [1] in 2023 by booking multibillion cable losses [2] before being acquired in a de facto LBO [3] at half the price it traded at in 2005 [4]. (90% off its 2021 peak, though that may have been meme-y.) Paramount Skydance–the one bidding for Warner–has $15bn of debt on $600mm operating cash flow supporting $15bn of equity trading above book value while still posting losses [5]. It's not dead. But it's at least necrotic. [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/cbs:us:net-income https://tradingeconomics.com/cbs:us:net-income [2] https://www.filmtake.com/distribution/paramounts-financial-turmoil-soaring-losses-layoffs-and-massive-impairment-charge/ https://www.filmtake.com/distribution/paramounts-financial-t... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Skydance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Skydance [4] https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/para/history/ https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/para/history/ [5] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PSKY/key-statistics/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PSKY/key-statistics/
• notepad0x90 10mo ago
  I thought I read somewhere paramount is in survival mode, avoiding risky projects and focusing on reliable projects. This is surprising indeed. Amazon took MGM, maybe netflix can take over paramount after it takes over warner bros? I know people have strong opinions on this, but both from studios like warner and netflix, their quality has been subpar, i don't think this will change much in terms of risk taking. There used to be lots of more flops but lots of really good blockbusters as well. Now there are a lot less of both, it is profitable but enshittified.
  • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > thought I read somewhere paramount is in survival mode Paramount's multi-year sale process deserves an HBO miniseries. But at this point, it's a de facto LBO platform for the Ellisons.
    • sippeangelo 10mo ago
      But who's gonna produce that once Paramount owns HBO?
      • WorldMaker 10mo ago
        Apple TV will buy it from Sony.
      • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > who's gonna produce that once Paramount owns HBO? Netflix. If they win, they own HBO. If they lose, they have a beef with Ellison. (Speaking out of my ass here. But I think there is broad underappreciation of how intensely a lot of Hollywood creatives do not want to work for a rightwinger. I imagine Netflix, Disney and others will have a bit of a bonanza over the coming years of picking up disaffecteds from Paramount et al, even assuming the latter don't wind up in bankruptcy.)
        • alephnerd 10mo ago
          Don't sleep on the A24 or NEON model. I think we'll see a boom in independent film production and distribution companies over the next few years, especially with the inevitable dry powder from either deal.
• afavour 10mo ago
  I'm curious how often tactics like this work. It is essentially asking the Warner stockholders to act against the wishes of their elected board. It seems the main thrust of the pitch is "we're friends with Trump therefore more likely to win approval" which is so deeply gross but also probably persuasive to many. Jared Kushner is involved in the Paramount bid so you know they're greasing the right wheels.
  • optimalsolver 10mo ago
    And probably also right.
  • stopbulying 10mo ago
    "Jared Kushner is part of Paramount's hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46195014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46195014
  • JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > curious how often tactics like this work Hostile takeovers hit their zenith "in the 1980s" [1], when about 50% of attempts succeeded [2]. Since then, Delaware courts have become more Board friendly (specifically, friendly to takeover defences), antitrust made "it more difficult for companies with large market shares to acquire competitors without some level of cooperation from the target company," and stocks became more expensive [1]. (I'm struggling to find recent literature on frequencies.) Compared to the 1980s and pre-Covid hostile takeover zenith, stocks remain expensive. But money is chaper, particularly for the politically connected. Antitrust is a wild card. And Warner has reduced takeover defences given it's already in the market for a sale (Revlon duties). So...somewhere below 50%? [1] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/11/08/the-comeback-of-hostile-takeovers/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/11/08/the-comeback-of-h... [2] https://faculty.fiu.edu/~daiglerr/pdf/hostile_takeovers.pdf https://faculty.fiu.edu/~daiglerr/pdf/hostile_takeovers.pdf
  • bhelkey 10mo ago
    >> We are offering shareholders $17.6 billion more cash than the deal they currently have signed up with Netflix > It seems the main thrust of the pitch is "we're friends with Trump therefore more likely to win approval" It seems to me that the main thrust of the pitch is more money.
• ngcazz 10mo ago
  No matter who wins, we lose.
  • postexitus 10mo ago
    Alien vs. Predator Whoever wins... We lose...
    • WorldMaker 10mo ago
      The Alien and Predator are now both Disney Princesses. IP consolidation came for them already.
    • tombert 10mo ago
      Very tangential, but that tagline was pretty misleading and it kind of pissed me off, because it was very clearly "if the Predator wins, we win".
  • glimshe 10mo ago
    If you like going to a physical theater, a Paramount victory could be slightly less bad.
    • WorldMaker 10mo ago
      Maybe? Paramount was already deep in shuffling a lot of movies to Paramount+ exclusives, and new parent company Skydance seems to have first-look deals with both Apple TV and Netflix who may or may not ask for movie projects to be streaming exclusive. (Apple TV is nearly as bad at theatrical runs as Netflix, though admittedly some of Apple's biggest "mistakes" are in presenting things beyond Oscar-bait such as Argyle that "box office flopped", but yet it is far better for physical theaters that they tried and as a fan of physical theaters I want to keep seeing them trying.)
  • __turbobrew__ 10mo ago
    I have seen several aspects of entertainment in my life get squeezed for money (Magic The Gathering, movies, TV streaming, video games) and I have decided to basically quit any form of entertainment which is solely controlled by large corporations. People get extremely angry when Magic The Gathering charges more money, for more exclusive products, in more frequently occurring releases. Rage, grief, and sorrow over an aspect of your life that you allow a singular company to control. It doesn’t have to be this way. You can walk away , and find more fulfilling activities that you control. This is what the kids call “touching grass”. At this point I don’t watch TV, I don’t watch movies, I don’t play Magic The Gathering, I only play video games over 10 years old. As I have gotten older I see now that this entertainment is junk food that replaces real satisfaction and accomplishment in life. Humans now more than ever have the opportunity to learn and do anything, but instead they spend it squandered on a shadow of real life.
• decremental 10mo ago
  [dead]
• feb012025 10mo ago
  The most concerning aspect for me is the obvious and conspicuously-timed consolidation of these companies under David Ellison. Within the past few months he's taken control of Paramount, CBS, The Free Press, and now he's working on Warner Bros. From everything I've seen he's basically an ideologue, and has already re-structured CBS to align with his vision. Just something that seems very out in the open yet kind of pushed off to the side.
  • pphysch 10mo ago
    Economic consolidation is one thing, consolidating under a malign foreign ideology is another. Definitely worrying.
  • pwillia7 10mo ago
    Back to the spoils system [1] baby! Hope you have a lot of capital and a tent to camp the White house lawn while you wait for your appointment. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
  • neogodless 10mo ago
    https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2025/12/03/how-the-ellison-empire-is-killing-americas-democratic-media/ https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2025/12/03/how-the-ellis... > How the Ellison Empire is Killing America’s Democratic Media
  • btown 10mo ago
    Don't forget that the Ellisons have a 15% stake in TikTok's American business as well!
  • imbnwa 10mo ago
    Yes, and he will control CNN just prior to the first midterms runoffs, this is all part of a plan.
  • pessimizer 10mo ago
    The Free Press wasn't worth anything, it's a blog with marginal readership. The creepy part is that Bari Weiss, a dimwit, was given $200M for that blog, put in charge of CBS News, and made a political commissar of all these new Oracle media properties with the brand names that Boomers love. This thread is using it as an opportunity to scream about Trump, but Democrats will be all in on this. They have the same funders and the same interests. The NYT is the outlet that legitimized Weiss in the first place, a woman whose only previous interest was claiming that Palestinians were harassing her on college campuses by being there, and trying her best to get them expelled and fired. The Democrats were no opposition to the genocide; it began under their watch, they fully funded and shielded it, and they happily rounded up protesters. They'll be overjoyed to accept Ellison attention and Ellison cash. I told all of you not to buy Oracle. Awful company, awful people, awful product.
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• jasonlotito 10mo ago
  I feel like at some level, it will be much easier to just pir.... I mean... train LLMs based on their content. Yeah. LLM training. That's acceptable. So it really doesn't matter who wins, we'll just perform LLM training.
  • an0malous 10mo ago
    I'm LLM training right now!
    • danielbln 10mo ago
      I'm using a well established distributed data pipeline for my LLM training.
  • Muromec 10mo ago
    Don't be silly. It's only LLM training if you are president's friend and bough the license to import a few BN worth of GPUs from the firm owned by his son in law.
• Computer0 10mo ago
  Larry Ellison is my named enemy
  • red-iron-pine 10mo ago
    larry ellison is guilty of all of the things they accuse soros of doing
    • 9dev 10mo ago
      Ever played Horizon: Zero Dawn? He’s like a real-life version of Ted Faro
• Sam713 10mo ago
  The success of a Netflix>WBD acquisition would consolidate a third of US streaming markets under one roof, which should receive anti-trust scrutiny. Despite this, there is still a strong appearance of conflict of interest in Trump’s public remarks regarding denying Netflix acquisition the necessary regulatory approval, in conjunction with his son-in-law Jared Kushner being one of the financial backers for Paramount’s cash bid. (1)https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/08/trump-netflix-wbd-paramount.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/08/trump-netflix-wbd-paramount.... (2)https://www.techradar.com/streaming/netflix/trump-says-the-big-netflix-warner-bros-merger-could-be-a-problem-heres-why https://www.techradar.com/streaming/netflix/trump-says-the-b...
  • ls612 10mo ago
    My guess is that if it went to trial Netflix would win tbh. That’s why Paramount is having to raise its bid substantially, they can’t rely on getting Trump to serve WB up on a platter.
• notepad0x90 10mo ago
  I just realized that the netflix ceo is a big-time democratic party donor, and that paramount is supposedly being supported by larry ellison (big-time republican/trump donor) and saudis? I'm sensing a strong political/influence angle here by the billionaires.
  • imbnwa 10mo ago
    That is exactly what is going on. Everyone at WB management knows that the Ellisons want to weaponize CNN before the midterms runoffs start in spring.
    • dragonwriter 10mo ago
      > the midterms runoffs Do you mean primaries? Runoffs are a thing in some elections in the US, but not a thing that would start in spring for the congressional midterms.
    • dawnerd 10mo ago
      Netflix isn't buying CNN though, Paramount can just pick up Discovery on the cheap when its split off. There's no reason for them to even be trying to do a hostile bid either. I think this is just purely an ego/power trip thing.
      • NoGravitas 10mo ago
        It's scheduling. WBD was set to spin off Discovery Global in April --- after the March congressional primaries. The hostile bid creates leverage to get the TV networks spun off sooner, rather than later, to ensure that the Ellisons can pick them up Q1, in time to set the narrative for the congressional primaries. See: https://substack.com/@thedreydossier/p-180959723 https://substack.com/@thedreydossier/p-180959723
    • ls-a 10mo ago
      Doesn't that imply that Netflix was planning to do the same (for their party)? Or are you saying Netflix is innocent here
• senderista 10mo ago
  The US is starting to resemble pre-war Ukraine, with industrial oligarchs owning their own media empires and openly buying elections/influence.
  • sophrosyne42 10mo ago
    Hostile bids have been a thing forever.
    • mmooss 10mo ago
      That says nothing about this particular situation. Written language has been a thing for 5,000 years, and it's used for this bid, so nothing remarkable here ...
      • sophrosyne42 10mo ago
        I guess the OP is just making an unrelated comment, because it almost sounds like he thinks that a hostile bid is evidence that the US has Ukraine-levels of corruption. Leaving aside the odd time period (Ukraine was much less corrupt pre-war than it was pre-Maidan, not to speak of its other more corrupt neighbor), the fact that hostile bids have been around for a long time in the US is good evidence to suggest that they don't indicate the level of corruption implied by OP. If OP made the same comment under a post about verb conjugation, wouldn't that seem odd to you too? Or maybe they just happened to make an off-topic comment that had nothing to do with the hostile takeover.
        • p_j_w 10mo ago
          You've completely missed the point. It's not that there's a hostile bid, it's the conditions of this particular hostile bid pointing to corruption.
          • sophrosyne42 10mo ago
            Sure, it could be that. If only OP said that.
• sega_sai 10mo ago
  Reading the comments -- it is amazing how quick it takes to from allegedly a democracy governed by a rule of law to a corrupt oligarchy. I personally understand the reasons, but it's a bit "funny" given all the grand-standing before about the founding fathers, checks and balances etc.
  • ncr100 10mo ago
    The mercenary values become quite plain sometimes. They have told us who they are, these people who are now brazenly about money and power. It's up to us not to forget, and to vote accordingly, and to call BS when we see it. Otherwise we lose our democracy.
    • chii 10mo ago
      > to vote accordingly too many people are too comfortable - both with not voting, but also to vote blindly. > we lose our democracy. it's half-way into the grave imho.
  • smrq 10mo ago
    Well, it took a lot of people by surprise that our famed checks and balances turned out to be toothless. Schoolhouse Rock sure didn't teach me that when other branches of government try to tell the executive branch to cut it out, they can just reply "no lol get bent".
    • creato 10mo ago
      The fatal mistake I see people repeatedly making is that it isn't about the system or checks and balances or whatever. It's about the people. The US had a deep bench of mostly reasonable leaders that mostly respected ideas like checks and balances or conflicts of interest. Those people are mostly gone now. Our society used to elevate people like that, but it just doesn't now.
  • jimbohn 10mo ago
    It all starts with regulatory capture, imo
• 1970-01-01 10mo ago
  All I can say is welcome back to torrenting. This perpetual "same shit deal for consumers, different corporation" problem doesn't end until copyright kicks the media into public domain. Until then, you can play their content reindeer games[1] or you can download a copy of Reindeer Games[2] and watch it without worrying about ownership foofaraw. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/reindeer-games https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/reindeer-games [2] predb.me
  • TSiege 10mo ago
    The problem here isn’t as simple as torrenting. It’s the narrowing of what culture is created and promoted and what isn’t. Paramount is overtly a right wing organization now under the Ellison’s. Part of their bid to WB is “it’d be a shame if trump killed this deal of yours”. Netflix’s groveling or Paramounts success might mean we see less art critical of the government and more that panders to its interest
    • sharts 10mo ago
      Has WB or Netflix ever been critical of the government?
      • deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      • afavour 10mo ago
        > Conservatives Take Aim at ‘One Battle After Another’: “Year’s Most Irresponsible Movie” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/one-battle-after-another-conservative-reactions-1236394128/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/one-batt... > Netflix's 93% RT Hit Show That Has the U.S. Government Furious Is a Streaming Sensation https://collider.com/netflix-boots-streaming-success-after-government-backlash-october-2025/ https://collider.com/netflix-boots-streaming-success-after-g... And that’s before we’ve even touched HBO. John Oliver is probably the most obvious example. But I’d say shows like Watchmen count too. Fahrenheit 451. Succession was pretty clearly mocking FOX News and its media ecosystem. Art that’s critical of the government doesn’t literally have to be shouting “Trump bad”, it can be done through critique or mocking of the values it holds.
• stackedinserter 10mo ago
  A plague on both your houses.
• unsungNovelty 10mo ago
  I dont know the political angle. But if the DVDs and Blurays still keeping rolling under Paramount for WB Archives, I want Paramount to get it. It's super unlikely that Netflix will let the WB Archive live with physical media. I mean, the way things are going, it's unlikely in both the cases. But I would get more time to collect everything I want by then with Paramount. Also, under Paramount WB Archive would be in the spotlight far more than under Netflix.
  • asciimov 10mo ago
    Ellison wants WBD for the TV networks, including CNN. I don’t think they want the film division but the vast number of cable channels that Discovery owns. Giving them a rather large control of the American mind share.
  • vachina 10mo ago
    What is the difference between bits on a Blu-ray vs on a drive platter?
• renegade-otter 10mo ago
  Jared Kushner's firm? I am pretty sure about who is going to win....
  • digitaltrees 10mo ago
    the fact that this is credible should scare every entrepreneur. If you cant compete on an even playing field because some people have direct government involvement in tipping the scales we are neither a free market economy nor a democracy.
    • renegade-otter 10mo ago
      Americans do not like when someone uses the words "fascism" and "oligarchy". It's jarring to think that is even possible in the United States but a) we are here and b) the two have traditionally gone hand-in-hand.
      • BLKNSLVR 10mo ago
        The Americans that react most extremely to those words are generally those that don't realize it's actually what they want. They just know the words as derogatory, without realizing that they represent the world as they think they'd like it to be.
        • actionfromafar 10mo ago
          That, is very Russian. They are "fighting the fascists" though they are.
          • renegade-otter 10mo ago
            Not surprising that the same people have special affection for Russia and their dictator. It's a role model.
    • trymas 10mo ago
      Since the beginning of the year - USA is just a shell of market economy. Small government indeed… Also some say it’s “flawed democracy”, IMHO - for last ~3 decades (or even more) it’s just a charade of democracy. Probably soon you won’t even have that. First-past-the-post two party system, bizarre primary elections, electoral college, land votes instead of people (how many senators are from california and how many from wyoming, they also say it’s “to balance the tyranny of majority”), abhorrent and disgusting gerrymandering (so states could also force tyranny of the minority in congress too :) ), voter suppression (voting on Tuesdays, employers can control if you can go vote that day, voting booth count is getting smaller, voter registration shenanigans in marginalised communities), etc.
• mbix77 10mo ago
  The level of corruption is really being raised. Trump family has not a shred of decency.
• digitaltrees 10mo ago
  When did silicon valley shift from "making the world a better place through disintermediation of relational data structures" to "own the means of production, control all government and bring back public hanging for masculine leadership"? Are they immature enough to think that people will just accept this without pushback? This is not the SV I believed in, and it won't end well for anyone.
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  • cyclecount 10mo ago
    Probably sometime around the early 1800s Malcolm Harris wrote a book “Palo Alto” about how this culture took root in SV long before it was called Silicon Valley: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/10/palo-alto-book-malcom-harris-interview https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/10/palo-alto-book...
    • digitaltrees 10mo ago
      I don’t agree with this at all when you look at how much founder reinvestment in other younger founders has driven the ecosystem over generations.
      • malcolmgreaves 10mo ago
        Are a few hand-picked winners from VCs hand-picking the next generation's winners _actually_ creating any sort of social prosperity?
  • clydethefrog 10mo ago
    As an outside observer, hasn't Thiel's Zero to One has been treated like a gospel basically since it's publication in 2012? Aiming for monopolies and total control has been part of the strategy for a decade now.
    • 10mo ago
• rurban 10mo ago
  That would be much better, as Paramount understands to make good movies, trusting good directors. This year only Warner had the good movies
  • pelagicAustral 10mo ago
    Putting aside all the politics involved in this merger, I kind of agree with you... My first thought when reading about Netflix acquiring WB was that a whole lot of IP was going go down the drain thanks to how hard they try to push an agenda in their content.
    • wffurr 10mo ago
      >> Putting aside all politics… >> how hard they try to push an agenda… Are you talking about a political agenda? What kind of Netflix shows have any kind of political agenda?
    • rurban 10mo ago
      My opinion is mostly based on old interviews with Coppola when he was asked why he would make Godfather with Paramount and not United Artists. He said Paramount doesn't care about movies, they are bankers and only care about money. They would not interfere at all with his artistic direction. And they didn't. Now that we have the Ellison, I don't know anymore. His daughter is excellent, but with a different studio. His son has no idea. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad. We'll see. My European colleagues are mostly worried about more MAGA nonsense in the media with the Ellisons
• ImPleadThe5th 10mo ago
  How can all this consolidation in media even be justified?
  • shafyy 10mo ago
    Greed, power and corruption.
    • lotsofpulp 10mo ago
      The media companies have had less and less power every year since the internet went mainstream. Big tech supplanted them a long time ago.
• Surac 10mo ago
  Paramout is Trump Land now. So suddenly it is a problem if Netflix gets Warner.
• khelavastr 10mo ago
  "You watch the content of you ARE the content"