[moffers]

I think the political angle of this should not be discounted

[clumsysmurf]

Some context:

"Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of Paramount's hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros Discovery, according to a regulatory filing."

https://www.axios.com/2025/12/08/jared-kushner-paramount-war...

[brandensilva]

The dark side of all this is a propaganda network.

The government and who runs it should not be in business I'm sorry. This isn't free markets, it's manipulation and corruption.

[kulahan]

Thank you, I had no idea how this was politically related, and honestly cannot keep track of all the corruption these days anyways. How does anyone? This is pretty much a genuine question.

[dyauspitr]

The political angle is the whole ball game

[pwillia7]

always has been

[Spivak]

I mean it's not even politics in the way most people think about it—like this is just blatant corruption. Trump moved in and said this is my swamp.

We're not even gonna get a good investigative journalism podcast about the corruption because it's just right there in front of you. There's not much to uncover.

[softwaredoug]

We need some kind of independent anti-corruption agency, like the one we told Ukraine they had to have to receive aid.

[perihelions]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46000977 ("Larry Ellison discussed axing CNN hosts with White House in takeover bid talks (theguardian.com)")

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048351 ("Larry Ellison Met with Trump to Discuss Which CNN Reporters They Plan to Fire (techdirt.com)")

Viewing this acquisition in terms of simple revenue alone is like positing Musk bought Twitter for its ad revenue. Total information control is priceless.

(In case anyone hasn't kept up with the plutocratic oligarchy in the US: Oracle's Larry Ellison currently owns Paramount (since July 2024), and Warner Bros. Entertainment owns CNN. This isn't explained in the CNBC OP: David Ellison is Larry's son and the token CEO).

[next_xibalba]

> Total information control is priceless.

Except there is robust competition in media —be it news, social, etc.

I think the political angle in terms of motivation is overstated. In terms of closing the deal though, it’s huge. David Ellison has been producing movies for quite some time. So his desire to become a big time player in that space would be a believable motivation. But he can use his father’s connections to Trump to sink the Netflix bid (or create enough FUD to convince shareholders to favor his bid).

[softwaredoug]

Stage AGs have a strong role to play in anti-trust law. And the other party they're suing _isnt_ a Federal agency this time.

Now maybe nothing matters. But conflicts of interest will come up in those cases. Trump doesn't win _everything_. Trump wins at places where the Supreme Court is using him for their own project of reworking the constitutional order. Basically Trump shoots up a volley with some absolutely batshit PoV, they interpret the topic in some saner (still crazy) right wing legal idea. And the Supreme Court fast track's these cases about executive power.

This case would be State AGs having independent standing to challenge major M&A.

It will drag things out at a minimum, in a way the Supreme Court's rapid resolution of executive branch cases is not dragged out.

[nutjob2]

I think it gives Netflix an advantage. When it comes up in front of a judge he'll note the obvious conflict of interest and Trump's idiotic pronouncements, like the fact that he said he will be personally involved, and rule for Netflix.

[zoeysmithe]

This will go to SCOTUS, which typically gives the administration preferential treatment. The US's current level of corruption is way too high to assume your scenario.

[sleepybrett]

HA hardly. Balance that against two of the top four streaming platforms (youtube, hbo, disney, netflix) trying to merge, probably should worry about some anti-trust there, but not under this administration.