So Larry Ellison just took over Paramount group which is now looking to bid for Warner Brothers and CNN. And now Ellison is going to take over TikTok.
Paramount(being run by Larry Ellison's son) is looking to install the pro-israel-propagandist who has variously masqueraded as a liberal, a conservative and anti-woke free-speech champion, Bari Weiss[1] as CBS's editor-in-chief or co-president[2]. It also bears mentioning that Ellison is a life-long zionist, friend of the IDF and close personal friend of Netanyahu to whom he even offered a post at Oracle.[3]
This very much looks like a hostile take-over of the American mind by a tech billionaire who just overtook Elon Musk to become the world's richest man. People should be talking about whether they want to go through this all over again.
[1] - https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
[2] - https://archive.is/20250916040811/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Ellison&old...
Thank you for providing the media take over angle. I wish the people down voting you would explain why.
He’s got the wrong guy on the paramount deal. It’s David Ellison though they’re related:
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/paramount-warner-bros-disco...
David Ellison is Larry Ellison's son, and Larry Ellison spent $6 billion on the Paramount deal. It's not really a stretch to imagine that the father might have some influence on the resulting operation. (According to a cursory web search, on paper Larry Ellison now has a 35.5% voting interest and David Ellison has a 64.5% voting interest.)
I agree it’s not that big of a stretch, but it elevates the discussion when you communicate what part of your argument is objectively correct vs a stretch.
My knee-jerk reaction was to upvote the comment, but that’s how Ecco chambers get increasingly divorced from reality.
how do you know if anyone is downvoting a comment?
The text gets lighter in color and harder to read. People may come later and vote for it, darkening the text again.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I don't believe for a second that you're being downvoted by someone with multiple accounts. You're being downvoted because you tried to frame a lukewarm observation (that brought receipts!) as some insane conspiratorial hot take in a really transparent manner, while simultaneously misrepresenting it (zionists vs jews) and ridiculing it (flat earth comparison).
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
https://fixupx.com/infolibnews/status/1968177947724198243?s=...
[flagged]
Enough with the tone policing. The original comment is accurate: Paramount seeks to install Zionist Bari Weiss. This is uncontroversially true.
[flagged]
Can you explain the conspiracy?
[flagged]
[flagged]
We're no longer accepting this tripe as sane discourse. Anyone of sound mind has seen, over the past 3 years, that Israel's securocrats and Zionists in America and Europe shut down any views that's remotely critical of Israel by influencing the media. It's also as clear as daylight that TikTok's problems started after they gave the world a window into Israel's atrocities in occupied Palestine. Ellison is a self-confessed Zionist.
Whether it's Bari Weiss abetting genocide against Palestinians, Silicon Valley purging anyone who questions it, or actively building the weapons that enable it, you can't glue people's eyes shut or force them not to believe their lying eyes with cries of antisemitism, conspiracy, etc.
mate.
You cannot accept whatever you want
personally, I think the whole “the Jews control the media” narrative is a bit, I don’t know, antisemetic?
Any time I find myself thinking “the x, y” I find that its probably racist.
“the muslims make child rape gangs”
“the welsh shag sheep”
“the blacks are fatherless”
“the whites are culture-less”
Grow up.
They said Israel. They said Zionists. You said they said Jews. Israel is not Jews. Zionists are not Jews.
As a jew (it's a shame I need to admit this in order to get through your dishonest screening), he's talking about zionists, not jews.
[flagged]
[flagged]
To be completly frank, its better to focus on the media consolidation part. That's the real problem.
Actually it's the opposite. Pre-internet, there were a handful of news sources in any given city (mostly newspapers and TV), so they couldn't afford to alienate half of their potential viewers/readers by leaning hard left or right.
Today, there are many, many sources of 'news' online. So many that the net effect is that most of those sources lean one way or the other, and by and large people choose to listen mostly or only to those sources they agree with.
No wonder political opinions are so highly divided today. Almost no one ever hears anything from the other side.
For a large share of the population social media is the only media they consume, so this is part of your real problem
> So Larry Ellison just took over Paramount group which is now looking to bid for Warner Brothers and CNN.
That's not Larry Ellison, it's his nepo baby David Ellison.
This is just crazy. No single person should have this amount of power, in particular if they have the moral integrity of Larry Ellison...
It is two people here. David Ellison who took over Paramount is the son of Larry Ellison of Oracle.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ellison
Durin I, Durin II…
>moral integrity of Larry Ellison...
Don't anthropomorphize Larry Ellison
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886728
Genuine question: what do you think the alternative is? Ultimately someone will have the power. I don’t know what’s particularly questionable about Larry Ellison. An entrepreneur controlling media seems better than the state or a foreign government.
Is Larry Ellison owning TikTok objectively better for US citizens than the current Chinese owners?
It less about who and more about how many. Lots of different people, with different points of view, sharing control of the media is way better than one guy having the ability to push whatever narrative they feel like at the time.
Trying to be neutral. Did we consider China's relationship with Palestine? Were we ok with American minds being swayed by a foreign country?
That is one of the prime reasons congress banned TikTok.
I would argue that on this matter and all matters relating to the middle-east, American minds are still being swayed by a foreign country and have been for the last 50 to 80 years. At least, with Chinese Tiktok, Elon's twitter and competition between the various social media platforms, Americans for the first time were exposed to voices from the other side. And between the two sides, were able to make up a more informed decision. This is a desperate attempt to reverse that. I doubt it will work in the long-term and i don't think it is expected to. But I think in near-term this is a measure to control the narrative to prepare for American misadventures in the region over the next couple of years. Which almost certainly includes a second war with Iran, Israeli annexation of the West Bank and even possibly a partial American occupation of Gaza.
If we want neutral, how about a fair arena for opinions and ideas.. at the moment "The Right" yells and screams "Anti-Semite! Terrorist!" if someone protests against the starvation and slaughter of children... So having them control the medium doesn't feel right for me.
Ok someone's going to come and say that "The Left" controlled the medium and disallowed "non-mainstream" messaging about Covid... I admit my bias and consider such messaging lunacy too..
Larry the lawnmower Ellison?
The lawnmower in question is a big-time donor to the Israel state and the IDF. Regarding the IDF the lawnmover seems to have caught some feelings:
When Oracle opened a data-center in Jerusalem, his colleague and CEO Safra Katz had this to say : "our commitment to Israel is second to none". Does America fall under [none] here? Something to consider when looking at these acquisitions.> This very much looks like a hostile take-over of the American mind by a tech billionaire who just overtook Elon Musk to become the world's richest man. People should be talking about whether they want to go through this all over again.
Again? People should be talking about the hostile take-over currently in progress and how it is getting exponentially worse. But the billionaire mouthpieces gave everyone a shiny new inconsequential talking point and no one cares about anything that matters.
> No one cares about anything that matters.
Maybe that's what they wanted all along.
Why fight a war against class, against oppression when we can sit on a chair and write a comment either defending or arguing against something as petty as religion.
It would be maybe the 3rd point worth discussing definitely after concentration of power & how they can influence our opinion of the masses.
But people made it the first.
There is no such thing as a moral billionaire imo, I saw a video like this and I sorta agree.
I wouldn't be comfortable with anyone owning this much amount of control.
Religion seems so petty to me yet it seems that the world is coming back to it. Fighting us vs them.
We have all forgotten what the people in 1970's esque dreamed of 2025 etc. (I am a genz but I have seen such videos of people thinking what)
And the funny thing is, is that we ourselves have forgotten how to dream of what will happen in 2100
Do we really want to grow old in society where even after 70-80 years, one of our children or grandchildren sees yet again some comment like this and writes something like this that I am writing?
I feel a little frustrated.
What's the problem with being pro-israel? Everyone needs to be pro-whatever-you-prefer? I'm pro-israel too.
> What's the problem with being pro-israel?
There are tiny pockets of this country that assume this is the singular issue that animates everybody, every day, and that it is impossible to believe in both Israel's right to exist and defend itself and the Palestinians' right to not be bombed because the Israeli PM doesn't want to go to jail.
The problem is that the pro stands from problem.
Whenever we take a stance, We identify our ego with that stance. We shall die but die a pro X or pro Y
As such many debates happen in bad faith as well.
Of course everyone has their agenda but one has to understand that agenda is just a framework for understanding the world.
And we need to understand the world because it has no inherent meaning.
So like, if we really have to deduce meaning, if we really have to be pro something that we can die on a hill towards, I'd rather have it be a humanitarian thing.
I am not saying that palestine is good either but rather that in genocide/wars, the people fighting the war/military/families displaced suffer, not the old man causing the war.
I feel like I am a humanist. Wishing to understand the world, yet I feel like some people in this world have hurt me so much that sometimes I just wish the world to burn.
I am sure that people are gonna comment on something like "oh do you support a genocide etc."
But I am trying to make the point that the world should really be just anti suffering,accepting. Yes I am naive but surely with all of this technological improvements, we can improve the structure of society to not be fucking brewing with hate and bullying and resentment.
We can do so much better as a society without even trying much. Just small acts of kindness and basically creating a environment that rewards it and punishes bullying/hate speech etc. might be really nice if I am being honest.
Not sure why we can't be pro this instead of defining ourselves with the confict of two other foreign nations
I think it stems from being a selfish species. All our life we pick sides - a sport team, university, town, etc.
We can't pick sides on violence. In wars, everybody loses.
I don't even know if we can consider things to win if that means that childrens have to die in screams.
I don't want such victories to be celebrated.
I want peace to be celebrated.
I don't think that its highly unusual to have a functioning society that doesn't actively partake where the children/woman/helpless suffer.
We have failed as a society if we can't stop it/actively pick sides in it.
The only side that one should pick is peace.
Did you miss the news that they're conducting a genocide?
I don't think Israel is conducting a genocide, to me for something to be a genocide you need to do much more than they are currently doing. To me it seems like they are conducting a fairly standard occupation with very authoritarian military control, that is not genocide.
Words tend to get watered down over time, if they were gassing Palestinians like Hitler gassed yews people would have a very different opinion on this matter, which is why I feel words shouldn't be watered down that much.
[flagged]
The problem is the word 'anti'. Being pro something doesn't mean you're anti something else. I can be pro-israel and still have sympathy for the Palestinians and what they are enduring and hoping for peace.
Well I'm pro anti-israel
> hostile take-over of the American mind by a tech billionaire who just overtook Elon Musk to become the world's richest man
Ellison read and responded to the political situation more skilfully than Elon.
He used Stargate to cement himself as a power broker in AI. He used that influence to provide antitrust assurances that gave his son a leg up for Paramount. Meanwhile he used that proximity to media to get a foot in the door with TikTok.
The root cause is the partisan politicisation of the economy. This is a project all the major Trump donors and high-level supporters contributed to. That Ellison is coming up as one of the new aristocrats is closer to a dice roll; that we have oligarchs, now, is very much by design.
In authoritarian regimes the industrial capacity of an economy is appropriated by the state, where the fruits of the industry are enjoyed by party loyalists.
In this case using the state to choose which business is viable, no doubt being businesses that play ball with the party.
-its why sectarian conflicts and power delegation is so high stakes in many parts of the world.
[flagged]
He (or she) lists several other characteristics of these people as well.
Ignoring the genocide topic for the moment, it’s relevant from a speech perspective: that’s an alliance of hard-right groups who have spent the last year conflating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism and trying to shut down voices which disagree with them (e.g. cuts to research grants based on unrelated actions on campus). Consolidating a large chunk of the information space under a unified group opposed to free speech should concern all of us.
Your post is fair, but it's not how I read the OP, which seems less concerned with consolidation of power than with people supportive of Israel having power. And while I appreciate that criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism, believing that Israel is a legitimate state that has the right to self-defense is all it takes to be labelled as a "Zionist", and at that point it's practically a euphemism for "Jew". I'm not familiar enough with Bari Weiss's views to tell if that's what's being done here, but the use of a pejorative without clarification, combined with the fixation on "Zionists" and the implication that their intent surely must be to issue pro-Israel propaganda in particular makes it sound a lot like old-school anti-semitism.
The wider context here is that the TikTok ban had significant support on the grounds of, what politicians and Zionist lobbying groups called, "anti-Israel bias" and "support for Hamas". Not just the explicitly stated "China Bad" motivations.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-... (Note: Article from November 2023)
The opposition to TikTok on grounds of it's Chinese ownership had been on a slow burn right up to October 2023, when it picked up steam in the wake of the early response to the Gaza War. US politicians were furious that the youth weren't buying the Bipartisan Approved Position(TM) on Israel.
Considering that major world organisations, even holocaust remembrance ones, are now calling Israel's actions genocide, that fury has aged like the finest bottle of raw milk.
Hence:
> and the implication that their intent surely must be to issue pro-Israel propaganda
That is indeed the implication made, for the reasons above, I don't think it is unwarranted.
That’s fair, I can’t say I know their inner thoughts either. Personally I’m concerned about the political unity and lack of respect for other people’s freedom of speech. We’re healthier with a robust public debate.
I sympathize with the sensitivity of the topic and what dog-whistling can look like. However, we're discussing media that people consume and the control that people have over that media. One of the most critical topics being controlled by media right now is the genocide in Gaza. And we're looking at a large section of media, including TikTok, being controlled by someone who not only denies that a genocide is happening, but is also complicit in it with their military contracts with Israel.
I think this is all relevant to the topic at hand.
I'm sympathetic to your argument, because you set explicit boundaries on the issue of concern, and you mention military contracts with concretely align Oracle with Israeli interests. It takes very selective reading between the lines to interpret the OP this charitably, when a direct interpretation reads more like "Jews who sympathize with Israel shouldn't own media platforms, because they will use them for propaganda." Which is maybe four words distanced from last-century anti-semitism.
I will add that TikTok is already being measurably manipulated, which everyone seems to be glossing over, perhaps because the bias runs in the "right" direction.
What the other side is doing exactly? They try to ban every Israeli, including composers, athletes, scientists etc. It's much worse in my opnion.
[flagged]
Only boomers in the US right wing have a net favorable view of Israel and it seems to me a lot of that is driven by contrarianism in response to the Left. The left hate it to therefore I must like it… that and the evangelicals. As the genocide drags on I think it’s putting many boomers off and more up to date polling may find that Israel is underwater there too. That would only leave the right wing leadership being net pro Israel which simply highlights the disconnect between politicians and the people that vote for them.
I’m pretty sure buying media companies like this is an attempt to stop the bleeding.
> Only boomers in the US right wing have a net favorable view of Israel
One, source? Because it's broader than that.
Two, you're measuing sign but not magnitude. A majority of Americans now have a negative view of Israel. A vast majority of Americans are unwilling to prioritise this issue in elections. (To the degree there are folks willing to do so, they're in deep-blue cities. Their power is in Democrat primaries. Not in general elections, and certainly not over the GOP.)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/04/08/how-ameri...
Republicans aged 19-49 have are split 50-50 on Israel with a strong and clear trend in the negative direction. That only leaves 50+ Republicans, sure a stretch of 'boomer' to include 50-61 in that but that only means it'll take a bit longer for the 50-61 cohort to hit net negative.
This isn't a problem for Israel now but I believe it's existential for them in the future.
Thank you for the source.
> isn't a problem for Israel now but I believe it's existential for them in the future
"A slight majority of Americans (53%) now express[ing] a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of Israel" is new, but given "the share of U.S. adults who voice very unfavorable views of Israel" is only "19% in 2025" (up from "10% in 2022"), it's not fair to call the threat existential. If that latter rises into the 30s, one could expect the American-Israeli alliance to start fracturing.
(Given the size of Israel's economy and potency of its military, it's also naïve to assume it couldn't replace America as a security partner. What it probably couldn't get from its new friends would be as favourable, deferential terms.)
It's a bit weird to say Israel could replace the US as a security partner without giving an example of who that would be. Russia? China? The EU? And what money are they to buy the materials with, their own? American? Who would continue to bribe their neighbors they're not at war with and restrain those they are at war with. What if Iran really does get nukes, what if a 3rd country gives them one.
Currently the Americans are trying to figure out how much sovereignty they really have and are discovering that it's indeed effectively none. What do you think that does to a population, especially during a sustained economic recession, where the fed is dropping interest rates, while stocks are at all time highs. It seems like the only thing Americans can agree on is that 'this cannot last', I don't know what'll replace it but there is a reasonably good chance it won't be good for Israel.
> weird to say Israel could replace the US as a security partner without giving an example of who that would be. Russia? China?
China, Russia and India come to mind. (The latter two need Israeli weapons expertise and are transactional about their geopolitics. The last is in the growing throes of anti-Muslim ethnonationalism. The first and third import energy.)
> what money are they to buy the materials with, their own?
Yes. Amercan aid to Israel is less than 1% of its GDP [1][2]. We buy influence with that money, but it's not existential.
> What if Iran really does get nukes, what if a 3rd country gives them one
...Israel already has nukes and superior delivery mechanisms to Iran. Also, if Iran gets nukes, I put Israel becoming a regional hegemon protecting the Gulf from a nuclear Iran on the board.
> Americans are trying to figure out how much sovereignty they really have and are discovering that it's indeed effectively none
This is dumb. America's Israel policy until about 2025 has been broadly popular with the electorate. (Israel could have become unpopular earlier, but nobody particularly likes folks occupying universities and blocking bridges.)
[1] https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel
With regards to sovereignty I was referring to US foreign policy, not dealing with annoying libs. Right now the struggle is between the Restrainers and the Primacists to decide if a war with China should be preceded by a war with Iran. Israel is pushing for the war with Iran because it wants to be the local hegemony. No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for the person most likely to enable it. Hence zero sovereignty, well maybe that’s negative sovereignty.
1% is absolutely huge with regards to a GDP (money spent). Also that’s not all inclusive, you need to throw in all the other money the US spends on the Middle East.
I’m unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this, but I generally am interested in exploring the bounds of others. Unless you have something new and interesting to share I think we’re done here.
> No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for the person most likely to enable it. Hence zero sovereignty
You're mixing up sovereignty with direct democracy.
We're a republic. We have total sovereignty when it comes to geopolitics. None of that requires Americans voting on foreign policy issues, which in reality, given even informed Americans' international literacy, would be horrific.
> 1% is absolutely huge with regards to a GDP (money spent)
But easy enough to replace, even solely with domestic resources.
> you need to throw in all the other money the US spends on the Middle East
This is nonsense. One, we're not abandoning the Gulf for a variety of financial and geostrategic reasons. Two, even if we do, that's an opportunity for Israel as an emerging regional hegemonic.
> I’m unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this
Wouldn't have expected otherwise. These discussions can still be interesting for us, as you mentioned, and for others.
I know Israel sees its future as a regional, and perhaps global, kingmaker. The fulcrum upon which the multipolar world balances and that this is an attractive proposition to them. But it’ll be entering into a world with a combination of circumstances that have never happened before, which I think is one hell of a risk, a risk that has a good chance of ending disastrously for them, let alone the rest of the world. And what should happen to them if they fail.
It’ll be like singing ‘we’ll be home by Christmas,’ or ‘King Cotton,’ often many of the assumptions that underpin these beliefs do not pan out. I guess it’s now ‘free beachside real estate.’
> a combination of circumstances that have never happened before, which I think is one hell of a risk, a risk that has a good chance of ending disastrously for them, let alone the rest of the world. And what should happen to them if they fail
Geopolitically, if America is becoming an unreliable security guarantor, they have no choice. They don't need to be bombing Gaza into oblivion. But they do need to establish the precedent that they can intervene with force in the region at their discretion.
Let me know when they’ve defeated the Houthis because so far that plan isn’t working, and that’s with US support.
[flagged]
The most complicated thing about Bari Weiss, who lost in a battle of wits against Joe Rogan (a rather low bar), is how she continues to fail upwards.
Fail upwards? She started a successful business and sold for a large value.
Not sure if that counts if it’s part of all the same influence project.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
You said conspiracies always land on one place, which clearly implied blaming "the jews". There is no point in debating people like you but I will reiterate a point you should care deeply about. Israel, right or wrong, is losing massive support among the younger generations world wide. And pretending they aren't massacring civilians and intentionally starving them only weakens Israel in the long run. So keep it up, you are actively eroding future support.
You can both care about the issue and not see the dastardly hand of Israel in every shadowy corner. The grandparent comment by volleyball is clearly not a reasoned take and is conspiratorial in it's linking of Jews and Netanyahu and the constant bugbear of certain types, Bari Weiss.
I am neither Israeli, Jewish, or particularly vested in Israel, I just find the constant banging on about Jews lately in the discourse to be troubling. A lot of it has a real Protocols of the Elders of Zion vibe where anything a public Jew does is linked to a shadowy Israeli conspiracy. Particularly this volleyball keeps posting about epstein conspiracies involving random Jews. several of those comments have now been removed.
People like you should be careful about who you're taking up cause with, because eventually you'll find yourself in very unsavory company.
[flagged]
Ellison claims his Zionism is disconnected from his mother being Jewish. He has also distanced himself from his Judaism. It is also worth noting that more American Zionists are Evangelicals than Jews. Last I saw, Netanyahu has a higher approval rating among American Evangelicals than he has in his own country. This issue is very much Zionists vs anti-Zionists. Attempts to frame it as Jews vs non-Jews is just a different flavor of anti-Semitism.
Thank you for saying this. The American Christian Right's staunch pro-Israel voting bloc is way underappreciated by most critics of the lobby money. These people are legion, and would not vote against Israel if you paid them: it's part of their Christian messianic religion that the Jews be in the Holy Land.
If the American Christian Right were purchasing TikTok, then it might be relevant to a discussion about the purchase of TikTok. Instead we have... this whole subthread of pointless crap and justifications for the pointless crap.
The original complaint here is that American Zionists are purchasing TikTok. The point being discussed in this subthread is that American Zionism is more in line with the American Right than American Jews. Therefore the relevant trait of the purchasers being criticized is their right wing ideology and not their religion.
I’m pretty sure the conflation has entered US law at the state level in most states. Not sure where it’s at the US federal level but it’s either conflated there as well or it is about to be.
Recently, I've been shocked to witness how normalized Jew hatred (which I distinguish from criticism of Israel) has become within Gen Z, even among people who exhibit progressive views and are otherwise vocally critical of racial/ethnic discrimination. I doubt it will stop with the genocide/war.
On the flip side, I see very little actual hatred of Jews, either cultural or religious, but I do see a lot of people claiming that any kind of opposition to the IDF flattening Gaza is equivalent to Jew hatred.
I'm gonna go on a limb and guess that since its a social media platform where people have been widely protesting a zionist led genocide by a Israel. the fact that the investor is a zionist and Israel supporter is probably very relevant.
more or less akin to a coal miner operator taking control over the EPA even.
> the fact that the investor is a zionist and Israel supporter is probably very relevant
To that issue, sure. What's being missed is that any buyer Trump signed off on would need to align with his views.
This is literally the entire issue behind why people think things like this are a bad idea.
I don't think it was missed. It was just so obvious that it didn't need to be called out explicitly.
It’s absolutely being missed. The cause isn’t the Israeli sympathy. That’s an effect of the party pushing to put American media under the thumb of the President. (Ironically, by a President who was helped to his position by TikTok.)
There is a lot of tail wagging the dog conspiracy in this thread. It dangerously reverses causation.
[flagged]
No one missed that.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Partially, yes? I don’t see that as particularly controversial at this point. We are beyond consensus manufacturing and into explicit governmental crackdowns on anti-Israel voices in the US.
So if I say, here or anywhere, that I disagree with Israel’s actions related to Gaza, I should be afraid?
Well, here I am. Come and get me.
> to support Israel? Is that what this is about?
It’s for money and power. Because of the partisan nature of the power grab, a certain grab bag of evangelical, fossil fuel and anti-gay tenets are going to get reïnforced. But treating those as the cause dangerously misses that this is being started at home.
I'd like to hear from the person I'm responding to, as it sounds an awful lot like a dog whistle.
I replied to your original comment.
Also, I wasn't invoking some dog-whistle. I was using the same phraseology of the Zionists. From the CEO of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, addressing the Israeli Knesset[1] :
He describes Tiktok as a target to be captured, comparing it to a mountain in Syria which Israel conquered late last year in its unannounced invasion of Syria. They make no bones about the fact that our minds are just another battlespace in this war that they're waging.[1] - https://x.com/DelGroyp/status/1856577467596845279 https://xcancel.com/DelGroyp/status/1856577467596845279
> anti-gay
Larry Ellison’s daughter is gay. Why do you think her brother and father are going to infuse Paramount with anti-gay bigotry?
It's important to remember that the ultra-powerful and wealthy live whatever life they want to live regardless of what their media companies promote.
Someone can own a media company, have it push very specific political ideologies with the goal of turning people against each other and gaining power for themselves. By pushing antagonistic media, they can prop up fringe political figures who'd be more willing to help them with their political goals. (E.g. tax policies that help the wealthy person's companies.)
They can still live whatever life they want, even going against the ideologies the media companies espouse, because they're rich enough that the fallout doesn't impact them.
They're living a very different kind of life than us.
BTW, I'm not explicitly arguing that Larry Ellison is doing this -- I don't have the context or background on that. I am saying that his media companies will 1. do things to help Larry's interests (which are probably political), and 2. that doesn't have to be aligned with however he lives his personal life, since he's effectively immune.
> Larry Ellison’s daughter is gay. Why do you think her brother and father are going to infuse Paramount with anti-gay bigotry?
Sorry, I'm speaking generally. The people in power broadly align with these policies. That means that when they gain control over a pillar of industry, they're broadly going to do influence it to some combination of those ends. The reason they gained power isn't to do those things. Ellison isn't taking control of TikTok to influence the Israel narrative. But when he takes control of it, as a result of the contours of powers that are MAGA, he will probably be forced to put forward an anti-Palestinian editorial bias.
There is a lot of tail wagging the dog conspiracy in this thread. I'm pushing back on that.
> Ellison isn't taking control of TikTok to influence the Israel narrative.
he might be doing it for money, but if he wasnt going to influence the Israel narrative in a specific way, he wouldnt be allowed to own TikTok
Current Oracle CEO Safra Catz lives in Palm Beach and is a frequent visitor to Mar-a-lago. She is actually a big Israel supporter, visiting and donating money often.
So what?
In large part, yes. There is also Trump, Republicans and their drive to carve out a bigger conservative-space in a liberal-dominated media landscape. There is Silicon valley, the rising digital-military-industrial complex, the china hawks, the intelligence apparatus and the security state, and the usual self-interests of the billionaire class. All of these forces are currently colluding to control the narrative (i.e. minds) in their favor. But I will argue the Israel angle is a big part of it which is being under-reported on ( by design).
Trump went after TikTok in his first presidency but was ultimately unsuccessful. It was the Biden government that successully banned TikTok last year in a bipartisan bill. What was the impetus then and why did it succeed? Listen to Charlie Kirk's personal take[1] on why Tiktok got banned (and how the right capitalized on it) :
Multiple congressman and representatives have cited anti-israel sentiment as their reason [2].Tiktok recently hired Erica Mindel - an instructor in the Armoured Corps in the Israeli army’s spokesperson’s unit - to lead the company’s hate speech policy. The potential hiring of Bari Weiss to head the CBS news division reveals a similar underlying motive. One which is laid out by the CEO of the ADL, in his address to the Israeli Knesset[3] :
[1] - https://x.com/DelGroyp/status/1856577467596845279 https://xcancel.com/DelGroyp/status/1856577467596845279[2] - https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/tiktok-ban-israel-palest... https://archive.is/20250918033631/https://theintercept.com/2...
[3] - https://x.com/infolibnews/status/1968177947724198243 https://xcancel.com/infolibnews/status/1968177947724198243
[4] - https://jewishinsider.com/2025/07/tiktok-hate-speech-manager... , https://www.middleeasteye.net/trending/tiktok-hires-ex-israe...
Now would be a good time to remind people that freedom of speech, whether you like it or not, applies to large entities as well as individuals. TikTok is as free to boost a pro-Israel narrative as you are to boost an anti-Israel narrative.
Stating that there’s some sort of “mind control” at work is both false and insults people’s intelligence. For one, there is literally no way to “control” someone’s mind. Influence is not control. It’s not the same as shaping a narrative. I think you ought to choose your words more responsibly and accurately.
What’s needed is to protect the marketplace of ideas from which people can choose for themselves. Some people will carry larger megaphones and have bigger venues than others. But being louder and bigger doesn’t assure the outcome you want. History has illustrated time and time again that minority opinions can, in the fullness of time, become majority ones.
And if they don’t, it doesn’t necessarily mean the opinion wasn’t heard. (I doubt people haven’t heard that Israel is committing atrocities or that Gaza is a horrible mess.) Some ideas just fail for lack of popularity or traction. You might think you’re right, but the majority just might not agree with you.
And even if major media outlets are all pushing your favorite narrative, that’s no guarantee of an outcome, either. If every major media outlet came on TV and social media tomorrow and said hemlock juice is good for you, I wouldn’t buy it.
>TikTok is as free to boost a pro-Israel narrative as you are to boost an anti-Israel narrative.
I boost an anti-israel narrative by exercising my right to free speech. In this case, The zionists are boosting a pro-israel narrative by excising free speech like mine - by banning Tiktok, then coercing Bytedance into selling their US subsidiary, and installing a IDF spokesperson to censor and moderate it.
>Stating that there’s some sort of “mind control” at work is both false and insults people’s intelligence. For one, there is literally no way to “control” someone’s mind. Influence is not control. It’s not the same as shaping a narrative. I think you ought to choose your words more responsibly and accurately.
I didn't mean to imply "mind-control". More like narrative-control and thought-policing. It may have came off differently than i intended.
> What’s needed is to protect the marketplace of ideas from which people can choose for themselves. Some people will carry larger megaphones and have bigger venues than others. But being louder and bigger doesn’t assure the outcome you want. History has illustrated time and time again that minority opinions can, in the fullness of time, become majority ones
What we are witnessing is a hostile-takeover in the marketplace of ideas. See above.
> History has illustrated time and time again that minority opinions can, in the fullness of time, become majority ones.
This might be a desperate measure that is unlikely to work in the long-term. Even Israelis, and their supporters in the conservative movement think that they have lost the support of the next generation or two. Which is probably why Netanyahu is going all out in this brief window of opportunity. It might be enough to buy them some breathing space in the near-term while they complete their genocide / ethnic-cleansing and re-occupation of the Gaza strip (with possible involvement of US ground-forces or contractors), complete their formal annexation of the West bank, and continue their invasion and annexation of Southern Syria. It (coupled with Trump's clampdown on college campuses) may also be aimed to preempt any vietnam-style protests against a second war with Iran (which will certainly US troops and seems all but certain to happen in the near future).
>History has illustrated time and time again that minority opinions can, in the fullness of time, become majority one
“One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this.” The time to speak out and act is now.
[flagged]
You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter how right you are or feel you are. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to participate here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
This kind of hyperbole is both ridiculous and offensive.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
No, we don't ban people for holding the wrong views, or what you feel are the wrong views, on a divisive topic like this one. Rather, it's your job not to post like this. And of course it's also the job of the people you're arguing with not to post like this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You should be emailing the staff with that request, not complaining in a thread. You should also include your evidence.
They read these threads just fine. I don't recommend emailing since that loses context. Additionally, it makes other people aware of the problem.
We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted to HN. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Alright, then, why don't you cite the relevant "raging genocidal Zionist" posts and comments here?
It's right there in what you wrote. It's why you got downvoted.
Are you calling me a genocidal Zionist? Yes or no, and on what, precisely, is your conclusion based?
And what other posts and comments are you referring to in your complaint?
[flagged]
Boy, that is a long logical leap. Not only is it insulting and wrong, but it's also defamatory and could get you in serious legal trouble.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. I could sue you for Islamophobia, because you agreed with the existence of the state of Israel.
Now what?
> I could sue you for Islamophobia
What would be the theory of your case? As an attorney, I'm very interested in how you think such a suit would proceed.
Your support for the continued existence of the state of Israel is plenty cause to sue. You really should be careful as you now have even larger legal exposure given the UN has concluded Israel is committing genocide.
Bad things happen to people that continue to support genocidal regimes, legally speaking.
This conversation is over, as you simply don't know what you're talking about. I would strongly advise you to seek counsel when it comes to legal matters.
I accept your surrender.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Is the argument that the Larry Ellison doesn't have huge sway over the companies he's owns outright or in part, or that saying him and Elon Musk have outsized control over America's information environment is conspiratorial? Either seem laughably wrong since these things are all public information
The argument is that adding "zionist" multiple times was an irrelevant and conspiracy theorist laden addition.
The consolidation of US media under a small number of right wing owners is an easily verifiable fact, not some conspiracy. Also, it's bad. Free markets need diversity, both in products AND in ideas.
Nothing hostile about it. This is what the American people voted for.
In 2020, 22.4% of the US population voted for Trump. In 2024, 22.7% of the population voted for Trump. I hate how people draw drastic conclusions regarding what the American people want based off the shift of less than half a percentage point of the population.
Everyone who chooses not to vote is voting “I don’t care” and so voted for whoever won.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An abstention is a voting choice that doesn't imply support for one choice or another in the minds of the voter, regardless of the result.
Abstention is not that, it is saying you are comfortable letting others choose for you. You have to consider the end result of the action not the intention of the action to understand what the choice really means.
Everyone who chooses not to vote is voting “I don’t like any candidate” and so voted against all candidates. How is your interpretation more valid than mine?
You aren't voting against anyone. You either vote for someone or you take yourself and your vote out of the picture and ceed political control to more passionate people. That is what they are doing, "I will let the most passionate people choose our leader and I stand by their choice" not "I don't like anyone."
How can you possibly feel comfortable ascribing a motive to over a hundred million people? You didn't answer the question on why this interpretation is more valid than mine.
I'm not ascribing a motive. They might believe whatever to justify their inaction. I'm just outlining the actual effect of their choice, which is quite literally to allow for others to choose.
This is a subtle moving of the goalposts. The original point from misnome was that people who didn't vote "voted for whoever won". Your last point was that non-voters inherently "stand by their choice". Neither of those is "the actual effect of their choice". They’re attempts to interpret the intention of non-voters.
This.
Idk about america, but there's definitely a sentiment echoing I feel like all across the world that there is a concentration of power and the divide between state and class is shrinking and we consider state to be itself (corrupt?) / not working to our wants.
That's my understanding of it. People have given up hope on...well having hope.
But hey lets define what is a woman first, that matters more than people sadly suiciding because they can't take this cruel petty world anymore.
We have induced our cruelness on earth, every animal,tree, air, even other humans. Who have we left?
Have we forgotten humanity? What does humanity even mean when we realize that people literally eat animals which scream to death from pain for the "taste" ?
I myself ate an egg yesterday for "protein" after a few years, I am skinny so I had to convince myself that I needed it but still my heart felt a bit bitter.
I am not judging you if you eat meat, that's not the point because I don't have a point/agenda. I am venting.You almost feel small when you think about it.
I really feel like the world can be a better place so there's hope tho.