6 ms·
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 republica
by notepad0x90 11mo 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 11mo agoThat 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 11mo 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 11mo agoNetflix 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 11mo agoIt'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 11mo agoDoesn't that imply that Netflix was planning to do the same (for their party)? Or are you saying Netflix is innocent here
- pylotlight 11mo agoDidn't you know? It's only bad when the people I don't like are doing it.
- raw_anon_1111 11mo agoWell Netflix hasn’t given Trump a $15 million bribe or any other politician yet.
- bdangubic 11mo agohis son-in-law is outbidding netflix so $15bn maybe would do it :)
- rjmorris 11mo agoNo, it doesn't imply that. Saying party X plans to do something implies nothing about what party Y plans to do.
- chii 11mo ago> Saying party X plans to do something but that's not the whole thing being said. Party X may have been planning on something, but party Y threw a wrench in the middle, causing party X to have to make some response. By implication, party X believes party Y to be throwing a wrench, hence, party X must act. Therefore, party Y also must be planning something that counteracts party X's desires. If it weren't so, party X would not act (as that costs money).
- dragonwriter 11mo agoThe thing that contradicts Party X's desires can just be not doing the thing Party X wants done, it doesn't have to be doing an equal and opposite thing. This seems like a variation on the fallacy of the excluded middle.
- 11mo ago
- bsimpson 11mo agoThere's no "supposedly." His kids are nepobabies that each run their own media company. His son is running Paramount, and his daughter has Annapurna.
- yibg 11mo ago[flagged]
- Muromec 11mo agorussia doesnt have oligarchs for 15 years at least, it has the opposite of it. Oligarchs control the big chunks of economy, media and have a lot of political influence direct and indirect. What they have right now is some friends of the dictator who own something until dictator allows them. The closest US has to olugarcha is Bezos and Musk, but they dont have each their own party and a few poket ministers in addition to owm bank and 20ish percent gdp. US is still too big and rich for this shit
- actionfromafar 11mo agoI think we are well into uncharted territory. One thing's for sure - here be dragons. I'm sure the US version of oligarchy will come in its unique flavor. Probably people won't even fall out of windows! That mode of "suicide" is maybe distinctly Russian.
- Muromec 11mo agoI don't want to disappoint, but you won't get oligarchy. You will get dictatorship and war.
- actionfromafar 11mo agoIt makes sense actually. :-( The US might be "free" and federated enough to not just bow down to a dictator.
- iAMkenough 11mo agoThe President's son-in-law is involved in the hostile bid through his private equity firm Affinity Partners. https://www.axios.com/2025/12/08/jared-kushner-paramount-warner-bros-netflix https://www.axios.com/2025/12/08/jared-kushner-paramount-war...
- NickC25 11mo ago>supposedly My man, you don't have to mince words here. This hostile bid is backed by Jared Kushner, who is the President's son in law. One Rich Asshole owns Paramount, and is most certainly supporting the bid here. This deal would also leave CNN in a very vulnerable position (they are owned by WB), which is exactly what Trump wants.
- actionfromafar 11mo agoStrong ”I am the State” vibes.
- yibg 11mo agoDoes seem to be the direction things are going. The admin picks the winners and losers, and of course the real winners are Trump, family and allies.
- renegade-otter 11mo agoOne thing that is remarkable is how fast American media companies are folding or getting scooped up by the oligarchs in order to bring the sacrificed carcass to the ruler. Even Putin did not have it this easy - took him years.
- kakacik 11mo agoThe only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
- watwut 11mo agoIt took years to get here tho. The oligarchs worked on this for years.
- giraffe_lady 11mo agoIt took decades, this is the late stages of an organized and intentional process they've been working towards, and spending vast amounts of money on, since the 1990s if not earlier.
- willio58 11mo agoLarry Ellison is also a very public supporter of Israel and the IDF, as recently as a few months ago speaking in support of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
- mike_h 11mo agoHe’s the largest individual donor to the IDF.
- dboreham 11mo agoWait...individuals can donate to a country's army?
- omnimus 11mo agoSure! And in return Oracle gets sweet IDF contracts payed by the US gov.
- MotiBanana 11mo agoSo we just blatantly lie now because "Israel=bad"? You can't donate directly to the IDF. US funding isn’t paying Oracle through some back door. If you’ve got a real source, show it—otherwise it’s just nonsense.
- omnimus 11mo agoThank you for asking! I thought I was just making funny comment on political situation. After quick search it turns out its not funny… just predictible. “Larry Ellison donates $16.6 million, says, ‘Since Israel’s founding, we have called on the brave men and women of the IDF to defend our home’” Oh and i know FIDF - Friends of the IDF (nonprofit through which these donations are going) are just that. Just friends.
- TiredOfLife 11mo agoThere is a huge war in europe (largest since WW2) and both sides rely on donations from individuals
- jedberg 11mo agoMore than that, Trump said yesterday that Netflix's purchase of WB "might be problematic" and that he would be "personally involved in the decision of approving it". He's trying to shakedown Netflix to pay fealty.
- 1659447091 11mo ago> More than that, Trump said yesterday that Netflix's purchase of WB "might be problematic" Adding Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn815egjqjpo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn815egjqjpo > He's trying to shakedown Netflix to pay fealty. I am not a supporter of most things this admin is doing, but also wouldn't be too sure on this one. I found it interestingly odd that out of nowhere he makes a comment on the deal after attending an event dealing with celebrating music and film. A regular shakedown would have happened before the deal when he met with the Netflix CEO recently, which the added link article mentions and was a person who Trump liked. And now we see the Paramount thing that leads me to think it fits more with the suggestion that he takes the side of the last person he speaks with, which was probably someone at the same event on the paramount side. I wouldn't rule out that he now plays them against each other in order to get something from it, but don't think it was the original reason for helping to throw a wrench into it