| ▲ | notepad0x90 15 hours 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. |
|
| ▲ | bsimpson 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There'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 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Muromec 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | russia 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 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I 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 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't want to disappoint, but you won't get oligarchy. You will get dictatorship and war. | | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | It makes sense actually. :-( The US might be "free" and federated enough to not just bow down to a dictator. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | willio58 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Larry 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 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | He’s the largest individual donor to the IDF. | | |
| ▲ | MotiBanana an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s misleading. You can’t directly donate to the IDF—people give to NGOs that support soldiers’ welfare, not combat operations or weapons. And while Ellison has given millions to FIDF, there’s no evidence he’s “the largest donor,” and no public ranking shows that. You can dislike Israel without inventing facts. | |
| ▲ | dboreham 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wait...individuals can donate to a country's army? | | |
| ▲ | MotiBanana an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | No, you can't donate directly to the IDF, but turns out you can just make stuff up as long as it fits one's world views. | |
| ▲ | omnimus 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure! And in return Oracle gets sweet IDF contracts payed by the US gov. | | |
| ▲ | MotiBanana an hour ago | parent [-] | | So 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 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Thank 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 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a huge war in europe (largest since WW2) and both sides rely on donations from individuals |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | NickC25 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >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 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Strong ”I am the State” vibes. | | |
| ▲ | yibg 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Does 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 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | One 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 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing | |
| ▲ | watwut 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It took years to get here tho. The oligarchs worked on this for years. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jedberg 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| More 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 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > More than that, Trump said yesterday that Netflix's purchase of WB "might be problematic" Adding Link: 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 |
|
|
| ▲ | imbnwa 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | dawnerd 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | ls-a 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Doesn't that imply that Netflix was planning to do the same (for their party)? Or are you saying Netflix is innocent here | | |
| ▲ | rjmorris 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it doesn't imply that. Saying party X plans to do something implies nothing about what party Y plans to do. | | |
| ▲ | chii 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | qbit42 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Netflix wasn't buying CNN. | |
| ▲ | pylotlight 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Didn't you know? It's only bad when the people I don't like are doing it. | | | |
| ▲ | salawat 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Netflix and those involved hasn't conclusively metamorphosed into a Larry Ellison-esque state of Lawn Moweriness. Make no mistake, it (Netflix) is still a billionaire corp; on the humanity scale, it scores quite low, but not lawn mower low. They're still outside the Ellison event horizon. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | iAMkenough 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The 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-war... |
