this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
226 points (97.1% liked)

memes

18365 readers
2801 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] humble_boatsman@sh.itjust.works 84 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Surely the free market will protect consumers and access to reliable information and integrity in broadcasting... With consolidated monopoly we can trust one or two billionaires. Surely. I'm sure.

[–] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 27 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You don’t become a billionaire by being a dick head so yea we can trust them

[–] amorangi@lemmy.nz 1 points 3 hours ago

If everyone just followed their example we could all be billionaires.

[–] istdaslol@feddit.org 39 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

But they will get it, as the paramount owner has sucked djtd

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Trump seems like he's waiting for the two companies to compete at lining his pockets before he makes a decision.

Very possible that Ellison's near-trillionaire dollar parent company can win in a slugging fight. But that cuts into his position to corner the market on national media, just as his inflated Oracle valuation is running into slightly-more-skeptical-than-a-goldfish Wall Street investment.

Meanwhile, Netflix only has $400B in equity to throw around, but appears to demonstrate some real value-add in consolidating with the other non-Disney Streaming Service that actually makes money. This isn't just a vanity project for them.

[–] GhostFish@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago

He gives excellent dome.

[–] dan69@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If people just don’t watch anything post merger.. that’s it for them. It’s kinda hard to but it’s still a fantastic fantasy.

The way they want to inshitify it all, I've a feeling it's not going to be that hard to say no all too soon.

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 15 points 10 hours ago

I'm imagining a comically oversized credit card, like those giant novelty checks.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 11 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 6 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

It almost seems like the big one they're after is CNN.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

they already got CNN

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I didn’t think Netflix was going to get CNN. Either way, I say let them have CNN. It is untrustworthy anyway.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I don't really think Netflix's goal was CNN, it just happens to be owned by WB. Netflix is after WB/HBO's library and production apparatus. I think Paramount's, especially Ellison and Kushner, goal here is primarily control of CNN. Even though CNN is dogshit, it's still one of the most watched news stations in the country, and control of that outlet would likely be very beneficial for Trump's propaganda machine.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

My googling said CNN was not a part of the deal.

Honestly, I think MAGA wants control of all media. No more woke Superman or antifa Peacemaker.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

Netflix’s deal/offer is only for WB/HBO properties. CNN etc. would be spun off into its own company called Discovery Worldwide IIRC.

Paramount’s hostile takeover attempt is for the whole WB/Discovery enterprise.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Wonder who’d finance that? I can only see companies solely interested in stripping anything valuable from a pair of husks, or foreign investors looking to effectively own a great portion of the American cultural sphere.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 22 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Wonder who’d finance that?

Saudi Arabia

I can only see companies solely interested in stripping anything valuable from a pair of husks, or foreign investors looking to effectively own a great portion of the American cultural sphere.

Netflix is legitimately looking to consolidate streaming services into a functional monopoly. There's a real value add in capturing all those HBO subscriptions and turning them into Netflix subscriptions. Plus, the benefit of adding the Netflix catalog to their own exclusive platform is self-apparent. Given the Netflix model for making movies - make one movie and reskin it a hundred times - this would be incredibly bleak for the HBO property set.

That said, Ellison has a ton of money coming in from his friends in Saudi Arabia and Softbank. And the Saudis really do seem to believe the future of their country is just a thousand data centers propping up a feudal style caliphate. Manipulating the world's largest military through their idiot-boxes seems to be a winning formula for global hegemony, so there's also plenty of value-add for The Kingdom.

So you're probably right on both fronts.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

PIF same as everything else

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

How is that even possible?

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Asetru@feddit.org 11 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The assets of the acquired company are often used as collateral for the financing

This is so dumb.

"I want to buy That Car, can you give me money? I have... nothing."

"But if you have nothing, how can we expect you to ever pay back That Car?"

"Well, after buying That Car, I will have a net worth of That Car, so paying you back obviously will be trivial using ownership of That Car."

"Sounds like we have a deal!"

[–] Pucker8736@piefed.social 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, I also think leveraged buyouts are dumb and should at the least be a lot more regulated than they are if not made illegal, but your example here is bad because that's exactly how car loans work.

Normal car loans have the title of the car go to the bank because the car itself is being used as collateral for the loan, just like a house is with a mortgage.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Which is why you need insurance if you buy That Car on a loan. So there's somebody else who will pay back the loan if you fuck up That Car.

If That Car is worth a hundred billion dollars, suddenly that very important aspect just seems to vanish and you can just buy That Car with itself without any further securities.

[–] Pucker8736@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Follow the money...