Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 424 posts

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#311

Post by brookst »

whycome wrote: post #163
KumaBear wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a shitty gamble when online media is where it is at now a days. These big media networks are dinosaurs hanging on by a thread.

2028 is closer than you think. Dinosaur media still connect with dinosaur-voting audiences.

And none of this is serious money to the Saudis and MAGA billionaires. If controlling this media ekes out a couple of percent in the midterms, it’s money well spent. A few tens of billions against consolidating power and bigger grifts? High ROI investment.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#312

Post by qbit42 »

ls-a wrote: post #188
imbnwa wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't that imply that Netflix was planning to do the same (for their party)? Or are you saying Netflix is innocent here

Netflix wasn't buying CNN.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#313

Post by [deleted] »

digitaltrees wrote: post #296

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]

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#314

Post by cyclecount »

digitaltrees wrote: post #296

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.

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...

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#315

Post by clydethefrog »

digitaltrees wrote: post #296

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.

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.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#316

Post by trymas »

digitaltrees wrote: post #294
renegade-otter wrote: post #275

Jared Kushner's firm? I am pretty sure about who is going to win....

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.

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.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#317

Post by thayne »

dabockster wrote: post #166
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/1065280/000119312525... 8.3(a)

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 ar…

I don't understand how that kind of clause can be legal. Its existence puts anti-trust enforcement in a catch-22, either they allow the merger, which reduces competition, or they reject it, and the acquiree is decimated, also reducing competition.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#318

Post by creato »

smrq wrote: post #287
sega_sai wrote: post #212

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.

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".

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.

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#319

Post by OhioMan2943 »

digitaltrees wrote: post #294
renegade-otter wrote: post #275

Jared Kushner's firm? I am pretty sure about who is going to win....

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.

this is the end of socially acceptable political norms as we know them

Re: Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

#320

Post by dragonwriter »

chii wrote: post #266
rjmorris wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't imply that. Saying party X plans to do something implies nothing about what party Y plans to do.

> 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…

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.

Post reply on HN