Nilay Patel: <a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/1004286/senator-adam-schiff-ai-trump-regulation-corruption" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/podcast/1004286/senator-adam-schiff...</a><p>> One of the longest-running tropes at The Verge is that a workable antitrust policy for the United States would be simply to forbid companies from buying Time Warner because it has never worked and it may never work again, and that we should just pass one law.<p>Checks out:<p>Jan 11, 2001: AOL and Time Warner merged to create AOL Time Warner<p>June 14, 2018: AT&T acquired Time Warner, renamed WarnerMedia<p>April 8, 2022: WarnerMedia spun out of AT&T, merged with Discovery
Oh this is hilarious. Didn't AT&T also acquire HBO and spin them off too?
They did, but first they rebranded them as Max, thus destroying the incredible name value of HBO. It was renamed back to HBO as part of the spinout IIRC.
HBO was part of Time Warner.
Companies wasting their money is the company's problem and it's really unclear to me why the government should give a single damn.
Because big companies destroying value makes the world worse? They're sucking up capital and not delivering anything to justify it.
Just because they get it wrong doesn’t make it right. You don’t even need to reach back 100 years to sort this.
March, 1989: Time and Warner announce merger, Paramount launches hostile bid for Time.
January, 1990: Time responds by buying Warner Communications for $14 billion.<p>...Paramount sulks, and bides its time....
This is more consolidation of US media under extremely pro-Israel ownership. I don't think this will work out as well as they hope (look at CBS -- Bari Weiss has driven it into the ground) but it's scary how much US media a foreign adversary now has direct editorial control over, including both "news" and "entertainment", including TikTok.<p><a href="https://www.972mag.com/ellisons-paramount-tiktok-israel-media-empire/" rel="nofollow">https://www.972mag.com/ellisons-paramount-tiktok-israel-medi...</a>
I'm not pro-Israel by any means but foreign adversary is a bit much.
Do they have the US interests at heart? Or their own? I think the latter, almost certainly. That makes them adversarial from a game theory perspective at the very least.
They pushed us into an unwinnnable quagmire that is helping to destroy our global leadership position - like Grump, their effects are indistinguishable from what an adversary would do.
Is it possible the next administration sues to break them up? Couldn't they also just launch endless investigations of the owners until they spun it off into its own thing
The next administration absolutely could, but that would require them to care more about about the well-being of the country than they do about themselves and the bribes and favors they could rake in if they don't.
That's seems to be the fatal flaw in our system. Congress, the FTC, and the president need to willing to put the interests of the nation above the interests of corporations. Maybe I'll live to see that happen, but a lot of people have died waiting for it (<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/The_Bosses_of_the_Senate_by_Joseph_Keppler.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/The_Boss...</a>) and it gets less likely all the time.
Sadly that probably won't happen:<p><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/paramount-merger-settlement-deal" rel="nofollow">https://www.commondreams.org/news/paramount-merger-settlemen...</a>
The article is a bit foolish.<p>Hypothetically California could have done something to prevent the merger. Then they [Paramount] leave California, as threatened, and then complete the merger.<p>The Federal government is the entity which needs to be the enforcer of antitrust. Otherwise major companies like these WILL pick and and leave the state blocking them. It's a 111 billion deal - this is worth moving states for the parties involved.
Okay. They should have called the bluff. It'd be better if the federal government did this, but that's not the world we live in right now.<p>Here's the issue: nothing stops them from leaving the state anyway after the deal is made. The concessions lack any weight. California folded potentially for nothing.
Let’s check where much of the ownership and money come from. From the LA Times:<p>> The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday granted Paramount Skydance’s request to allow Middle Eastern royal families to hold a substantial stake in a merged Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery.<p>> Foreign investors, including the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi, are slated to indirectly own nearly 50% of the equity in David Ellison’s proposed mega-studio. That will give them a hefty stake in CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, HBO and two historic Hollywood film studios.<p>So foreign “adversaries” literally own enormous stakes in these companies and have been cleared by the FCC. Yet only possible pro-Israel influence by Ellison gets called out?<p>1: <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2026-09-17/fcc-approves-foreign-owners-for-merged-paramount-warner-bros" rel="nofollow">https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...</a>
2: <a href="https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2026/04/15/qatar_is_buying_american_cinema_1176559.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2026/04/15/qatar_is...</a>
Naturally. Because OP isn't going to let pesky facts interfere with his narrative.
When they take dollars for oil, they would rather swap paper currency with real assets (ownership of firms). If US doesn't want that, they should make moves to remove USD as a reserve currency or preferred currency for global trade.
Out of those 3, one is a covert ally of Israel and the other is an overt ally. David and Larry Ellison are avowed Zionists.
Is Israel the main concern? They gave tens of millions to Trump. They are now Republican media.
Yeah, it's not great that the head of the corporation is so close with Netanyahu, but there are more immediate problems for the US. These corporations aren't ideological though, they'll just do whatever it takes to get what more of what they want. David Ellison and his daddy have both been more than happy to throw huge piles of money at Democrats and support them when they thought it was convenient. When Republicans are out of power they'll support whoever replaces them. When you have no morals whatsoever what difference is there in supporting a Democrat, or a genocide, or a Republican?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Consider me a politically ignorant folk who has heard Israel = Good his whole life, thought it was silly when recently people started hating on Israel, and has heard it long enough that he's wondering what he's been ignoring.<p>With that introduction, is there a quick sum up somewhere to get someone like me to understand why there's so much division on this topic? All I really know is that in the most recent stuff with Gaza, people think that Israel's actions are too much, but I would be lying if I claimed to know what any of those Middle East scurmishes are about.
This is a good starting point:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba</a>
I gotta be honest, given the LLMs we have today, it takes less words to get a list of references and context to read than it takes to type out your comment.<p>If you're genuinely curious about why people's views on Israel have shifted you could've got yourself excellent information with a simple prompt as such:<p>"Give me a brief neutral summary backed with reliable sources on the state of tensions in the Middle East today and the role played by Israel and other states. Help me understand why people's views on Israel have shifted so much since the start of the war in Gaza?"
Note the Israeli training data scandal to influence AI responses. AI is not reliable for this purpose.
Keeping the other response in mind: I cannot think of a worse idea than to rely on black box tech for output on your political opinions. That on its surface simply feels like a top 3 dystopia cliche that I hope we avoid.
And what's wrong with that?<p>I think it's great that the America supports Israel, whose values and interests basically align with the West, over the rest of the Middle East, Russia and China with their values, which being as diplomatic as possible, do not.<p>Just take a look at all the countries that are the most against Israel. They are a mixture of failed states, third world and what they all share in common is a distressing lack of regard for human rights. Both of other nationalities and their own. Europe is unfortunately going in that direction, and I believe it's no coincience that they are simultaneously becoming worse countries and more anti Israel. It's not causation but it is correlation.
> distressing lack of regard for human rights<p>The US couped, invaded, and destroyed tens of countries since WW2 until now. Israel is still massacring civilians in Gaza during a ceasefire and continuing their pogrom in the West Bank, killing people and stealing more lands. This is your example of human rights?
Yes. Your argument is fallacious because it's classic whataboutism. Just because the US have done some morally questionable things doesn't mean they are not committed to humanism in general and by comparison to all the other countries I've mentioned, they are so much better. And their trajectory over time is one of continued improvement.<p>As for your charges against Israel, they are factually incorrect. Israel is not still massacring civilians in Gaza, neither did they at any point engage in anything like a systemic, strategic program of killing civilians in Gaza. If you want to know what the casualty figures would look like if that was indeed the case, look at Iran which did do just that with the protests last year where they succeeded in murdering in one week roughly the amount of people Israel killed in Gaza in an entire year of active fighting. The worst you can accuse them of is of not doing enough to minimize civilian casualties. I will argue they did plenty but that's for another time. As for "progroms" in the West Bank, I would love to see what you're talking about. For your reference this is a wikipedia page on progroms[1] For some context, the number of extremist violent settlers that the whole world is fixated on numbers according to estimates in the dozens to hundreds.<p>Finally, I will leave it up to your imagination what it would look like if the roles were reversed, if the Arabs were dominant in Israel and the Jews were a minority, to help things along, here's examples from the wider Arab world[2]<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_...</a>
Not sure what your values are, but mine don't include decades of apartheid followed by genocide.
You've managed to work your favorite conspiracy into this completely unrelated conversation as well! Congrats!
Under what criteria exactly is Israel a "foreign adversary"...?
Have you been paying attention to american politics the last 15 years or so? It's become astoundingly clear that Mossad has blackmail material on virtually every major politician and uses it to get its way - including billions of dollars in funding and drawing the US into conflicts that do not benefit us and instead result in the deaths of Americans (and as of Trump's statement yesterday, the threat of bombings on American soil.)
[dead]
>but it's scary how much US media a foreign adversary now has direct editorial control over<p>It's not antisemitic to criticize Israel, but this language is verging on antisemitic because Israel very much does not have "direct editorial control" over Skydance. David Ellison is the one with "direct editorial control" and you can certainly say he's "extremely pro-Israel" but he himself is not "a foreign adversary" by any definition of those words. So either you're being hyperbolic with the meaning of "direct editorial control" or you're insinuating that David Ellison will defer to Israel on everything because he's Jewish which is a common antisemitic trope[1]. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former, but the latter is enough of a possibility that I would suggest rephrasing this comment to avoid giving supporters of Israel a legitimate line of complaint against your underlying point.<p>[1] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_loyalty#Jews" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_loyalty#Jews</a>
What about his co-CEO, an ex-IDF soldier?
If you want to make an accusation, make an accusation. Do you think a specific person at the head of this company is "a foreign advisory"? Because the vagueness of an accusation can come across like a dog whistle. If you believe ethics and facts are on your side, what's the point of being vague?
Isn't technically every Israeli adult over a certain age ex-IDF? I had understood service to be compulsory for all citizens.
Yes, military service is compulsory in Israel so using "ex-IDF soldier" in this context does stick out because it isn't actually adding any new details. It gives the impression that the reason that language was chosen was that it implies something more nefarious than "Israeli" without the requirement of actually detailing what makes it nefarious.
The owners openly talk about Israel often and loudly.<p>Larry Ellison:<p><a href="https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/larry-ellison-vetted-marco-rubio-israel-hacked-emails-ron-prosor" rel="nofollow">https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/larry-ellison-vetted-marco-ru...</a><p>>Larry Ellison Vetted Marco Rubio for Fealty to Israel<p>Indeed Israeli media covers this also:<p><a href="https://forward.com/fast-forward/853703/david-ellison-appoints-israeli-to-lead-merged-paramount-warner-studios/" rel="nofollow">https://forward.com/fast-forward/853703/david-ellison-appoin...</a><p>>David Ellison appoints Israeli to lead merged Paramount-Warner studios<p>The same thing happened with the Tik Tok purchase, the entire point of handing control of the Tik Tok algorithm to Larry Ellison was so that they could clamp down on the discussion about the genocide in Gaza. You can see the results of it in the reports that the world Jewish congress put out directly:<p>><a href="https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/YNN3EKGj/hope_report_0910.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/YNN3...</a><p>>TikTok is the exception, removing 64% of content overall (and 71% of
content formally reported to it), compared to 12–15% on every other major platform.
It seems like you fully ignored my point, so I'll repeat myself:<p>>you can certainly say he's "extremely pro-Israel" but he himself is not "a foreign adversary" by any definition of those words.<p>All you're showing is that his family is pro-Israel, but that does not mean they are <i>controlled by Israel</i>. These conversations about Israel always seem to remove the agency on the American end which is where a lot of the historical antisemitic tropes live. Whether it's intentional or not, it's phrased in a way that evokes the trope of a shadowy cabal of Jews pulling the strings behind the scenes, and other countries rarely get talked about in this same way. For example, have you ever heard anyone suggest Google and Microsoft are controlled by India because their CEOs were born in India?
"controlled by Israel" is kind of impossible to prove and that was never anyone's argument. But it's very obvious that these people are placing ethnic affinity and the interests of a foreign nation above the United States. They are going out of their way to buy media to shape the discourse of this country in favor of a foreign nation and a specific ethnic group.<p>>other countries rarely get talked about in this same way<p>They actually do, but the Israeli lobby has grown so powerful that it is now dominating most of the political action in the USA in a way that has become impossible to ignore.<p>There are actually plenty of conversations to be had about Indian ethnic affinity and lobbying. USINPAC is the Indian lobbying organization which is actually modeled after AIPAC (the notorious Israeli lobbying group which has political control over most of the US congress).<p><a href="https://www.trackaipac.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.trackaipac.com/</a><p>There is a looming argument which hasn't yet entered the public mainstream discourse about Indian foreign influence and Indian ethnic nepotism in the United States, but that is an entirely separate conversation.<p>Most Indian CEOs are the same caste (Brahmin) and there is a good argument that many of them have been nominated by the boards of their companies and institutional investors with large stakes so that they can navigate India's notorious bureaucracy and deepen ties to the country, which supplies much of the cheap labor for the tech industry. Many of them have direct ties to the Bharatiya Janata Party in India and can use the access to people like Modi to access more Indian labor as well as build more in India. Modi talks openly about exporting human capital and using its diaspora to wield influence in the United States. One can argue that they are taking a cue from Israel here.<p>>Narendra Modi urges the Indian diaspora to become an extension of foreign policy<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/02/narendra-modi-india-overseas-diaspora-united-states" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/02/narendra-modi-...</a>
>"controlled by Israel"... was never anyone's argument.<p>Yes it was. My comment was directly in response to someone saying "it's scary how much US media a foreign adversary now has direct editorial control over". I know that was not your argument, but it was someone's argument and I responded to refute it. I don't know what point you thought was being discussed, but it's now clear you misread the conversation.
They put Bari Weiss in charge of CBS news. Her <i>only</i> credential is being rabidly zionist. This trait got her blog purchased for 100s of millions of dollars (!!) and then put her in charge of CBS news.<p>If you want to split hairs between "controlled by Israel" and "controlled by people who's sole interest is supporting Israel", go ahead.
A behemoth indeed but the numbers also tell an interesting story. For TV screen share, Youtube has ~13% of total US viewing time vs ~6% for Paramount/Warner. They also go into this merger with staggering debt which does not bode well.
This would be the anti anti trust argument - that it's not studio vs studio, but it's type of screen-time vs other types of screen-time.<p>Was it Reed Hastings that was painting Netflix's main rival not other streaming platforms, but other types of leisure like video games? This was during the streaming wars IIRC.<p>Regardless of how you look at it, this is yet another confluence of IP franchises merging together, whatever juice is left in them squeezed out and reprocessed over and over over time. Kind of what Oracle is in software I guess?<p>Working in an adjacent entertainment IP focus business myself, my eyes are glazing over a bit at this point.
> Was it Reed Hastings that was painting Netflix's main rival not other streaming platforms, but other types of leisure like video games? This was during the streaming wars IIRC.<p>Yea, and spending time with your friends and family, meeting new people, sleeping...<p>From [1]:<p>> “Think about if you didn’t watch Netflix last night: What did you do? There’s such a broad range of things that you did to relax and unwind, hang out, and connect—and we compete with all of that.”<p>When I read that interview, I became a lot more cautious of using Netflix and other streaming platforms, knowing their design is adversarial to my values (I want to be deliberate about what I watch, not be manipulated into mindless consumption).<p>[1] <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/40491939/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-sleep-is-our-competition" rel="nofollow">https://www.fastcompany.com/40491939/netflix-ceo-reed-hastin...</a>
This is the same argument from when Sirius and XM radio merged. It didn't matter that they were monopolizing satellite radio because the real competition was terrestrial radio and internet radio.
From my perspective YouTube has quietly won the streaming wars. It has a vastly wider variety of content, especially for non-fiction shows. In the cases where there's more direct genre competition, I tend to prefer YouTube overall because, despite its offerings being generally lower budget, they tend to represent a wider variety of "editorial voices". There's a lot of outright slop to wade through, ofc, but there's also a lot of creative risk taking out there to discover.<p>Meanwhile, yeah, Paramount, Time Warner, Disney, etc. have all become so money-minded and risk-averse that it reminds me of the twilight days of the old Hollywood studio system, where all the major production companies were locked into a heated battle to determine who could be the absolute blandest.
> despite its offerings being generally lower budget, they tend to represent a wider variety of "editorial voices".<p>There's a huge amount of censorship with youtube though. The movies and shows on cable and streaming services can still talk about dead people without being forced to say they are "unalived". CNN can talk about a pandemic without calling it a "panini". Besides censoring specific words and phrases Youtube demonitizes entire genres of content along with anything that is "unfriendly" to advertisers. If that's the future of media in the US we're screwed.
I kind of agree, and it's interesting how Nebula and Spotify (at least their video efforts) have been based on elevating and funding those ultra-budget YouTube creators. Like I watch Lindsay Ellis and Practical Engineering and SkillUp all on non-YouTube platforms now, despite YouTube being the recommendation algorithm that originally brought me there.<p>It's really the opposite model of the "major" streaming players who fund tentpole releases in the conventional Hollywood way, and then have a long tail of niche content (cooking reality shows and the like) that are clearly on a much tighter budget, but still basically modeled on being a cheaper version of a cable show rather than a much better funded version of a YouTube comedy troupe.
I was just listening to an interview with an up and coming playwright, and he made an interesting point that he really doesn’t like how expensive live theater has become. I guess he has been deliberately targeting super low budget not-even-off-broadway venues because he felt that a big budget stifles creativity. The more money the production stands to lose, the more pressure there is to play it safe.<p>That kind of describes my relationship with Nebula. There’s a lot of great stuff on there, and lately I have been watching it more than YouTube. But still, YouTube is where I tend to go when I’m looking to find something new that I genuinely haven’t seen before. I think the lower floor for production values is a big part of that.
> Regardless of how you look at it, this is yet another confluence of IP franchises merging together, whatever juice is left in them squeezed out and reprocessed over and over over time. Kind of what Oracle is in software I guess?<p>Cantrill tried to, as diplomatically as possible, warn everyone.<p>Nobody listened.
> Was it Reed Hastings that was painting Netflix's main rival not other streaming platforms, but other types of leisure like video games?<p>Yes. He always told us that we don't need to worry about the other streamers nearly as much as we have to worry about them turning off the TV and playing games or (gasp!) going outside. TikTok/Instagram Reels wasn't a thing yet, but if it were, I'm sure they would have been on the list too.
Reed Hastings may be rich, but he is a fucking moron. By his logic the greatest threat to entertainment is people who parent without screens.
You're misinterpreting what "threat" means. And in fact he used the word "competition."<p>He was talking about the "incumbent" they are trying to displace. Netflix's challenge was not getting people to switch from watching Hulu to Netflix, but to get them not to sleep in order to watch Netflix.<p>Evil maybe, but nothing moronic about it.
youtube has slowly become like 90% of my TV time over the past few years, I think it's the fact that you don't have to commit to watching 40+ minutes of something every time and there's just way too much interesting content on it<p>and i'm not even someone you'd class as young anymore, so I don't think this is a younger generation thing
Are you watching YouTubeTV, or just independent-ish creator YouTube?<p>I watch probably an hour of YouTube a week and would watch more if I could find anything good.<p>My favorite TV of the past five years is probably Severance. Is there anything of that caliber on YouTube? One of the best movies I saw last year was on Netflix (Train Dreams). Are there great movies on YouTube?<p>I’d love to year about some of your favorite stuff on YouTube.
independent-ish creators (I'm aware that a lot of channels seem to be bought out by private equity lately), but mostly science, technology, speedrunning, mysteries, recipe guides, things like that, basically stuff that I'm interested in
I'm in the opposite camp. I find Youtube <i>exhausting</i>, and it keeps getting worse and worse.<p>Their ads are <i>terrible</i>. And since I watch via a device like Roku, etc, I have to put up with them. I've actively removed them from my devices. Occasionally, I feel like looking up some video. I install it, and often before I even watch the video I uninstall it because the awful UI reminds me of all the other awful stuff in it.<p>Curation doesn't exist. I have to work hard to find good content. Harder than any video service out there.<p>And shorts. Oh. Dear. God.<p>For some very targeted stuff (home repairs, video game walkthroughs), it's great. For the rest, it just sucks.
Of all of the various online services, YouTube is the one where I feel I get the most value in return for paying for premium. 90% of my video <i>and music</i> consumption is through YouTube, and it's all ad-free. (Well, except that so much of hobby YouTube is implicitly <i>all</i> ad because the video is about some piece of hobby gear, but that's sort of the nature of the beast.)<p>I've never watched a YouTube short.<p>My recommendations are all very well aligned with my interests. The trick here is to go through your watch history and delete things that are leading the recommendation algorithm astray. I am ruthless about that.
> 90% of my video and music consumption is through YouTube, and it's all ad-free.<p>If it works for you, great! Most video I watch is in the form of TV shows and movies. And Youtube sucks for that. Youtube is great for <i>some</i> hobby stuff. I used to like it for reviews, but even that sucks now - when I do a search I'm inundated with low effort reviews (i.e. by people who haven't used the product they're reviewing).<p>But if there's a creator you really like and follow, I can understand that.<p>> I've never watched a YouTube short.<p>Don't you think they should give you an option not to present them to you, given that you don't watch them?<p>> My recommendations are all very well aligned with my interests. The trick here is to go through your watch history and delete things that are leading the recommendation algorithm astray. I am ruthless about that.<p>I don't want to pay money and then have to do this. This is a pain I don't have to deal with in any other service.
There are a few ways to disable/hide shorts. One day I said to a friend, “man I wish I could block these things, they’re insulting to my intelligence and just encourage clicking around” and my friend said “I’ve been blocking them for a while, just do this.” And while I can’t remember what “this” was, it’s worth a quick google.<p>Shorts are like the video equivalent of snacking on Doritos all day long.
If you have the ads turned off, it's a lot nicer. I got that with some family bundle for more Drive space.
Let me put it this way.<p>Youtube without ads is still worse than pretty much all the major streaming services <i>with</i> ads.<p>I don't want to pay for that.
>Youtube without ads is still worse than pretty much all the major streaming services with ads.<p>Depends on what you watch, as always. my YT feed is a mix of news, random gaming content, documentaries on a variety of topics, and odd little tech trivia. It covers all the bases at once.<p>Any other streaming service is simply "okay, maybe there's 1-2 shows on here I want to watch". Then I just pluck it onto my NAS and move about on my day. Why would I pay for a streaming service that struggles to even keep the few shows I like on there running past 1-2 seasons?<p>Nebula is the only other service I ever considered paying for. It's not a "Youtube killer" and misses out on a lot of the odd trivia sides of YT, but it overally feels more fleshed out on content than Netflix".
> Any other streaming service is simply "okay, maybe there's 1-2 shows on here I want to watch".<p>If there's even 1 show I want to watch, it's great to watch it. The problem with Youtube is <i>even when they have stuff I want to watch, it's a pain to watch it</i>. Their UI is atrocious!<p>> Why would I pay for a streaming service that struggles to even keep the few shows I like on there running past 1-2 seasons?<p>You just unsubscribe at that point.<p>Know how much stuff I had bookmarked on Youtube that is no longer available? A whole damn lot.
Maybe I'm missing something, but every video service Ui feels the same these days. Grid of videos with some loose sorting, click to play/pause, seek controls. I wouldn't call any of them good/bad on UI alone.
Or just watch Youtube on a laptop, and install an ad blocker.
> Their ads are terrible.<p>I imagine they are that's why I pay for YT Premium, which I think is my most bang for buck subscription based on the amount of time I spend watching it<p>> Curation doesn't exist.<p>I don't find this a problem personally because 95% of my feed is just channels I'm subscribed to but YMMV depends on what you expect out of it
I watch Youtube on a Chromecast using the SmartTube app, which is a 3rd party front-end (side-loaded APK) for Youtube that eliminates all the ads, and lets you configure practically <i>everything</i>. Don't like "shorts", just disable them and they are <i>gone</i>. That's the main reason I sought out an alternative to the Youtube app, I hated the shorts and there was no way to get rid of them in the Youtube app.<p>I used to pay for a Youtube subscription to get rid of the ads, but that doesn't include the in-video ads that content creators put in there - but SmartTube has that covered too, in most videos I watch the in-video ads are skipped too. I have 5 chromecasts on the 5 TVs around my house, and every one of them has SmartTube installed. I wouldn't want to watch Youtube without it.<p><a href="https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTube/releases" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTube/releases</a>
I wonder what that % would look like for US voters over 60
How long until the US just has The Media Company that controls nearly all high-budget mass media and film industries in that country?
Is that even a risk? There's still Disney, Comcast, Sony, Netflix, Amazon, Apple...
Can this be undone in the future if folks realize it was too monopolistic and it was in fact an anti-trust violation?<p>I wonder if David Ellison is a fun guy IRL.
Should we wonder if Goebbels was a fun guy irl? I don't get it.
He has a nice yacht, I bet it's fun on the yacht.
IMO, a better solution for the broadcast media part of this is to delegate content regulation to the states when the signal from a tv/radio station is entirely within one state (and some kind of join regulation when it spans >1).<p>Concentrating so much power in the federal government is problematic, and unnecessary.
> Can this be undone in the future if folks realize it was too monopolistic and it was in fact an anti-trust violation?<p>I predict the democrats winning, shoving it all under that table and pushing for "reconciliation" and "moving forward" while continuing the rotten status quo that got Trump elected in the first place. Maybe a few token prosecutions of low level wage workers involved.
Seems to me that these companies will say pretty much whatever during the merger process, and as long as there's no concrete repercussions written down somewhere, just do whatever since it's much harder to break a company apart than it is to block a merger.
The pre-merger settlement approved by the current supreme court was that Skydance would: (1) Agree to production quota of 30 movies per year, (2) Domestic spending commitments, and (3) Separate cable package negotiations.<p>Assets: TNT, CBS, CNN, MTV, TCM, Showtime, Adult Swim, DC Studios, Paramount+, Nickelodeon, HBO/HBO Max, Comedy Central, Cartoon Network<p>Film Rights: Star Trek, Gremlins, Beetlejuice, DC Comics, Tom & Jerry, Harry Potter, Citizen Kane, Transformers, A Quiet Place, Looney Tunes, The Conjuring, Mortal Kombat, Game of Thrones, Dora The Explorer, Mission Impossible, The Lord of the Rings, SpongeBob SquarePants, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Dune 3, Minecraft, MonsterVerse<p>Remember that Citizen Kane is the movie about a media tycoon who buys everything he can and ends up alone in a mansion full of stuff.
> 1) Agree to production quota of 30 movies per year,<p>Why? Does the population need movies? Who does this even benefit?<p>> (2) Domestic spending commitments, and<p>Never heard of Hollywood accounting? They have mastery of exploiting loopholes.<p>> (3) Separate cable package negotiations.<p>What's "cable"? Is that the 1900's alternative to putting up a TV antenna?
So you’re saying this opens up the possibility of some wild crossover media stories. Star Trek exploring new worlds that also include krypton, cybertron, and the game of thrones world. Oh Dune too. And maybe do the time travel thing to see a Lord of the Rings middle earth. And have Dora graduate to captain of a star ship (or explore the sea and encounter SpongeBob and Aquaman). Batman can team up with the Mission Impossible crew to solve a mystery. Ninja turtles in a mortal kombat? Wonder Woman in Westeros with Harry Potter?<p>Maybe a Sora descendant will allow user-directed content to emerge.
> Star Trek exploring new worlds that also include krypton, cybertron, and the game of thrones world. Oh Dune too. And maybe do the time travel thing to see a Lord of the Rings middle earth.<p>Sadly that isn’t far removed from the novelty “Strange New Worlds” series they recently released. What a mess season 4 was. :(
>Maybe a Sora descendant will allow user-directed content to emerge.<p>Sora didn't die because UGC social media doesn't work. Sora died because UGC social media would just be reposted to Tiktok.<p>These new tech companies are still too obsessed with 2000's/2010's versions of monetization. sell it as a service on a subscription (with some free tier rate throttling) focused on content creators (who will make the money back by posting) and it would have at least lasted longer.
Nothing of the sort would ever happen. They would be insane to risk the integrity of their IPs by doing something so ridiculous.<p>That said, as snowflakey as Star Trek fans are, I would <i>love</i> to see their reaction to Dora the Explorer ordering Batman to launch photon torpedos at Unicron. They'd probably complain about "yet another DEI captain."
Please enjoy this SlopGen Fantasy Skydance Kingdom.<p><a href="https://chatgpt.com/s/m_6ac56dbab5448191866eb7c80c31c025" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/s/m_6ac56dbab5448191866eb7c80c31c025</a>
Nothing on that list should have lived this long.
There wouldn't be a clear "undo" button after years of joint operation. A future administration could in principle order the Time Warner assets to be spun back off, but realistically that'd be a huge headache, and I'd rather they spend their time and political capital imprisoning everyone who negotiated the deal.
I learned from working with some that psychopaths are a lot of fun going for a drink after work, but at work they make your life a misery.
If the Trumps get their cut, you're golden.
serious question how could you possible argue this is monopolistic when Disney, Netflix, and Youtube exist. It doesn't pass the barest level of scrutiny.
Monopoly is the wrong word, but it has a close cousin, “anticompetitive”. For free market people one of the major role of the government is maintaining competition and avoiding collusion, combining to competitors is straightforward collusion.
It's never been a better time to start consuming less. Let's drive that demand way, way down.
not a fan of CNN, but a very right leaning person is the owner of CNN now. pre-dictatorship vibes!!
Where "right" means specifically "Likud"
[flagged]
The other thing that is growing is the conflation of opposition to Israel’s belligerence and human rights violations with antisemitism.
There are vastly more Semitic people than Zionists. In fact most Zionists aren’t Semitic whatsoever.<p>Post truth world. Sad stuff.
No it’s not, antisemitism is not equal to criticism of Israel.
And it's definitely not for being critical of Israel's government's policies. You can believe that the Jewish people deserve to have a peaceful place to live, and also believe that what they are doing to Palestine is wrong.
So how do you interpret the accusation of American jew David Ellison to be a "pre-dictator" working for Likud?
He's donated to and voted for candidates of both parties, and claims to be a centrist.
I don’t follow the sentiment.<p>Right wing people have repeatedly captured and destroyed journalism outlets they deem undesirable. Not that I’m saying CNN is any good.
Ah yes, but Larry Ellison is Jewish.<p>Literally the only difference between him and the rest of the wannabe media barons, but you could fart the word “Israel” with your armpit and get upvotes these days.
Well no, the difference is that this merger is in favor with the current administration which has engaged in a broad and pervasive pattern of authoritarian behaviors while being in lock-step with Israel's interests.<p>This merger is only happening because the deal that the seller actually preferred (Netflix buying them) was unlikely to be approved by regulators. The President literally came out right after the deal was approved and said "it could be a problem" and "I would have a say" in whether it went through.<p>In fact the very existence of Paramount Skydance <i>itself</i>, as a merged entity, appears to have been contingent upon Paramount modifying its own HR policies, placing a government ombudsman at their marquee journalistic outlet (CBS), and paying $16 million to Trump's "presidential library fund."
I'm not arguing any of that, obviously this all reeks of corruption and cronyism as almost everything in this admin does.<p>But that's not what people were focusing on here, it's a lot of "Practically Likud" and the increasingly uncomfortable dog whistle "Zionist".
More importantly he's a zionist and put bari Weiss in charge. It's pretty clear what they want to do.
[flagged]
I think the public should be able to view true left-of-centre perspectives from mainstream media outlets, and that is very much not happening in the US.<p>If - for example - you find a major news outlet that's pro-union, pro-single-payer, pro-wealth-taxes, and pro-debt-free-education, let me know.
> view true left-of-centre perspectives from mainstream media outlets<p>Do you think this is being prevented somehow? There are many left leaning news agencies [1]. Maybe the "problem" is that they're all for profit, most of which comes from ads, most of which are anti union companies.<p>What's the alternative? Mandated reporting?<p>[1] <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/" rel="nofollow">https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/sh...</a>
>>Do you think only left leaning perspectives should be reported?<p>No! but where did you get that from?<p>There is Fox news, X, and Truth socia for right leaning perspectives.
It's the right wing perma-victim complex.<p>"We'll tell you the truth about the Dominion voting machines, which mainstream media WON'T tell you!" - Fox News, knowingly lying while also being literally the largest broadcast network in the country.
In a alternative universe, a very wealthy person starts a not for profit news agency and gives zero f's how many eyeballs it gets. Hires an army of world class journalists, investigators, and producers to churn out high quality, vetted, in depth content. Does this exist?
You'll still only get half-truths, but maybe (<i>maybe</i>) the sum of the vectors will be roughly normal
I'm not saying new should be entirely left and right. My point is that the adversarial system will find <i>more</i> flaws than a more neutral system. There's plenty of time, and all sorts of in-between agencies, to point out the neutral stuffs. My point is that the existence of even super politically aligned news agencies isn't some pure bad thing, or a sign of a dictatorship. We <i>need</i> both. All the news agencies being aligned one way would be a VERY BAD thing. All the news agencies being aligned to some "center" would be only slightly less bad.<p>CNN nudging more towards the right doesn't somehow influence the overall left leaning spread [1], or is in any way indicative of a rising dictatorship.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/" rel="nofollow">https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/sh...</a>
Do you have an example of left-leaning reporting that is mass media in the US?
WaPo, NYT, The Atlantic, NPR, and many others.
Only people on the right think NPR is on the left. NPR is the most middle of the road you can get. Just because they report facts that contradict the administration doesn't make them left leaning.
Not true at all? <a href="https://ground.news/interest/npr" rel="nofollow">https://ground.news/interest/npr</a>
I used to be an avid NPR listener, but after George Floyd it's <i>astoundingly</i> woke when I try listening. That's not very often anymore, to be fair.
I know hard core leftists love to bash NPR/PBS, but as a non-leftist, non-centrist, non-right wing person, I definitely find NPR to have a left wing bias. Not as left wing as Democracy Now, etc - but definitely left leaning.
The NPR front page right now has a clip from a profanity-filled interview with a drag queen.<p>Famously fair and balanced, I know.
Ok, and they also have the President saying Iraq should bomb Los Angeles. What is your point?
Huh?<p>Here are all the headlines currently above the fold on the homepage. Don't see anything about a drag queen below the fold either.<p>Maybe something autocorrected in your address bar when you tried to navigate to NPR?<p>* What happened during Christa Pike's failed execution<p>* Christa Pike conscious and able to speak after failed execution<p>* As Trump focuses the FBI on immigration, counterintelligence is falling behind<p>* Democrats' advantage is clear with less than a month to go in the midterm elections<p>* What voters in 6 key states could tell us about the 2026 midterms<p>* People are asking ChatGPT to help them decide how to vote in the midterms<p>* Alaska's US Senate race collides with the pollock industry in a fight over fish<p>* Poll: Residents are losing faith in Vermont as a good place to start life<p>* In race for Tennessee governor, Blackburn refuses to debate Democrat Green<p>* Disney, ABC battle Trump's FCC in court over free speech protections<p>* New Hollywood era begins with an epic mega merger between Paramount and Warner Bros.<p>* She died covering war for Fox News. Her parents blame the network — and a star reporter<p>* Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey's new Pentagon roles raise ethics worries<p>* Jim Bakker, who built 'PTL Club' televangelism empire, has died at 86<p>* Cornell names former acting U.S. attorney general to review rape case<p>* Cornell students protest the university's handling of 2024 rape allegations<p>* Francis Halzen wins Nobel Prize in physics for work on high-energy neutrinos from space
NPR takes "both sides" reporting to an absurd extreme
Have you read the WaPo and NYT lately?
WaPo? definitely not. going through independence crisis.<p>NYT - i think so.<p>NPR - funding crisis.<p>The Atlantic - i don't read this - is this the one who's journalist was added in the top secret signal chat?
It's not a clear divide between right and left, and NYT, the Atlantic, and NPR stans right wing voices constantly, have constantly used their editorialization to promote right wing ideals, and have gone out of their way to center right wing voices to give the appearance of being centrist to the right, which has had a direct impact in their perception as not really left wing by any of the left.<p>Now the center right is supporting concentration camps like "alligator alcatraz" so the overton window has shifted a lot in the last ten years.
WaPo definitely is not with Bezos at the helm and preventing them from endorsing Harris
To the left of outright fascist propaganda? I'll give you that.
I think it is amusing that people try to peg each news outlet as "left" or "right" as if they are an 18-year-old who votes whilst standing on a seesaw.<p>First, political views are not one-dimensional and so the "left"/"right" and far-extreme-ultra game is just "are they on my side or are they considered bonkers by my brethren?" games.<p>I believe that it's far better to consider news outlets as a product of their sponsors vs. their intended audience. By and large, they are all corporations trying to maximize revenue by attracting and maintaining a large audience for their materials, thereby paying their sponsors and advertisers the revenue they need.<p>So, they will produce stories that engage the audience. Whether that is enraging us, stoking controversy, appealing to us with smooth words: doesn't matter. There's no such thing as bad engagement. The corollary is that they don't want to <i>lose audience members</i> so any slide into supporting unpopular causes or candidates or ideologies is nipped in the bud.<p>Folks also can't seem to accept that editorial opinions or ideologies can shift, especially for example, if a news outlet supports "whoever/whatever is currently in power this year" or as a contrarian, opposes them, and riles up the opposition parties.<p>Wikipedia's relentless blacklisting and deprecation of "unreliable sources" is a great public experiment in this regard. If you really want a nice left-leaning anodyne view of the world, go with Wikipedia and "blacklist" or stop paying attention to any source they don't like.
Yes, all of them, minus the ones you can count on one hand that's missing a few fingers from a fireworks mishap.
This is probably my leftist bias, but ever consider that "leftists" are more interested in laws and decency whereas "rightists" are more interested in protecting their tribe/movement? But you think both sides play like "the right" (each only interested in exposing flaws of the other side) because you're seeing from your right-leaning perspective...<p>Democrat Al Franken got kicked out of Senate when it was found he inapproprately kissed a woman. I can name a long list of creeps in the GOP side who received protection from their side. Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore, Sexual Harassment Hegseth, Epstein-Friend in Chief. The GOP doesn't seem to have any principles about which sexual deviant they have, they just care about having the majority (in congress) or the power. Oh yeah, speaking of that, sexual assaulter Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh...<p>I'd trust left-leaning media to report wrongdoing whoever does it, whereas right-leaning media will gloss or bare-face lie about wrongdoing done by the right, and exaggerate about wrongdoings by the left...
It sure feels like there are people who care about formulating and holding principles (e.g. "adultery is bad") that ought to apply to everyone, and then there are people who <i>pretend</i> to do the same but all the "principles" are just reflections of some ultimate virtue of loyalty/obedience, towards some hierarchy they consider existentially important.<p>The first group will define good/bad acts and then judge people by what acts they commit. The other will defines good/bad people, and then judge acts by which person is doing them. If you want investigative journalism, clearly group #1 is preferable.<p>On a similar note, I highly recommend a playlist of long-form videos from ~2016, titled (in the sense of an expose) "The Alt-Right Playbook". In particular, the video "Always a Bigger Fish" [0] tries to make sense of some persistent "how can they possibly believe X but not Y" disagreements when it comes to democracy and egalitarianism.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs&list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ&index=11" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs&list=PLJA_jUddXv...</a>
First it was Time in 1990, then AOL then AT&T then Discovery and now this. That's 5 owners since 90 for Warner Brothers and none of those really worked out well. I don't know enough to know if this stands a better chance, but if I was going to bet, I'd bet Warner has a new owner before 2030.
This is the first time they are being bought by another company that makes content. Every other purchase was to add content creation to an existing company. So maybe there is chance.<p>But probably not with Ellison in charge. He'll probably just drive both companies into the ground.
At least it drains a few hundred billion dollars from the Ellisons.
Yes! What the consumer needs! Less competition! Hurrah!<p>Sorry for the sarcasm.
CNN will become another Fox News, leaving The New York Times as the last remaining bastion of independent reporting on what the current administration is doing.
Seems fine. There are more options for entertainment than ever. Often these mergers don't work out anyway.
So what does this mean? Superman vs. the Transformers?<p>I'm not sure I was interested in either company by themselves—less likely to be interested in the merged one.
You have to admit that David Ellison is extremely talented at being born to one of the wealthiest people in human history.
Fun fact: Skydance was originally started as a vehicle to buy David Ellison an acting career [1], which spent $60M on Fly Boys. It grossed $17M. There's a very real "failed in Hollywood to alt-right" pipeline, actually.<p>The truth is that Hollywood was already dying and it had been systematically dismantled by short-term profit seeking. It dismantled the system that created hugely valuable properties like Friends, Cheers, ER, Seinfeld, etc where 22 episodes were created every year to a system where streamers could cut out having to pay for syndication by creating 8 episodes every 3-4 years.<p>You see a lot of stars of shows having podcasts now from shows that ended years or even decades ago (The Office, The Sopranos). In a healthy ecosystem, successful actors would be working actors.<p>You see productions chase tax rebates all across North America such as Georgia and Canada where once productions were typically based in LA and that had a ton of ecosystem benefits. As soon as the tax rebates go, so do the productions.<p>Gavin Newsom clearly isn't serious about becoming president because approving this merger is going to lead to even more layoffs and fewer productions. It's going to be deeply unpopular in California. For good reason.<p>So what's core to all this (IMHO) is... housing. Housing is an input cost to everything in that locations. LA used to be relatively cheap. It had a mix of housing types from single family homes to mansions to budget apartments so Ho actors, writers, etc could reasonably start out.<p>And then with declining demand as productions spread out and less pilots and shows were being made overall, the industry has become dominated by nepo babies.<p>I actually think that in future centuries when history is written about the turning point for American empire, it'll be the downfall of Hollywood. You cannot overstate the value the US had to export culture to the entire world with Hollywood.<p>[1]: <a href="https://brobible.com/culture/article/david-ellison-tried-to-be-an-actor-flyboys-clip/" rel="nofollow">https://brobible.com/culture/article/david-ellison-tried-to-...</a>
<i>>Fun fact: Skydance was originally started as a vehicle to buy David Ellison an acting career</i><p>Damn, I wish my daddy was a multi-billionaire and fund my hobbies with 8 figures.<p><i>>So what's core to all this (IMHO) is... housing. </i><p>The Backrooms and Obsession were made by youtubers with shoestring budgets.<p>The core is Hollywood hasn't made any new innovative and memorable IPs to convince people to spend money watching them in over a decade. People aren't gonna go to the cinema to watch a crappy new sequel/reboot of the Terminator or the Matrix when they can watch the better originals they already have at home on DVD for free as many times they want.<p><i>>the industry has become dominated by nepo babies</i><p>More like it's been dominated by accountants and nepo-babies cosplaying as socialist political activists to score brownie points with the public but with zero talent to create something good worth watching. <i>"Evil cannot create anything new it can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made"</i>
So when do they raise prices and start laying folks off?
I've seen plenty of negative (and legitimate) sentiment around this merger but I'm cautiously optimistic that David Ellison, being half the age of anyone else with greenlight authority, will do something different/better.
As long as you are hoping he has a really, really, really positive view of Israel you're going to be happy!
His running of Skydance says otherwise. The most formulaic and bland film studio there is.
Skydance/Paramount has had plenty of success attracting young audiences via UFC & gaming partnerships, so I'm not sure that's a counterpoint. Re forumulaic/bland that's a personal taste thing and not worth arguing.<p>The key contributor to Hollywood's waning influence is the generation gap; it's a cultural institution that is supposed to be culturally salient. Take the <i>Mandalorian</i> movie as an example; the biggest studio using the biggest IP to spend $300M on a movie... which <i>lost</i> $100M. That movie was competing at the box office at the same time with <i>Obsession</i>, which was made for $750k by a young Youtuber has made over half a billion worldwide.<p>As of today Ellison has an extraordinary amount of greenlight authority in an industry whose decision-makers are overwhelmingly a generation older. He can shake things up if he wants to, and I hope he does.
Being formulaic and bland is an important aspect of expecting someone to “do something different” or “shake things up”. If the owner of a film studio has so much green light power but the studio has primarily produced film following a single formula, which the audiences have grown bored with (hence bland), then how can there be an expectation of that owner suddenly doing something different simply because they bought another studio?
> As of today Ellison has an extraordinary amount of greenlight authority in an industry whose decision-makers are overwhelmingly a generation older.<p>Who do you think he has more in common with? An average consumer his own age, or adult members of any age from the elite class that hes likely spent most of his time around?
so does this mean i get paramount plus for free with my hbo?
It means they are going to raise prices for both platforms because they can.
Free? I don’t think a monopoly knows the meaning of that word
It means that Paramount Plus is saddled with debt, and HBO is saddled with debt. And that someone needs to pay off that debt.
If it makes them more money
When do we get Bugs Bunny on the Enterprise ?
I'm not even mad. Let's do it. With Marvin the Martian.<p>They had a Lower Decks cartoon crossover already, so they can't even deny the possibility now.
That would be less immersion breaking then some of the recent Strange New World episodes.
So they’ve committed to for example releasing 30-32 movies a year for the next five years [1] but after that, no promises. Good thing mergers are famously temporary and we never need to worry about the next 10 years! Oh wait…<p>[1] <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/09/25/paramount-hollywood-promises.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/09/25/paramount-hollywood-prom...</a>
T-Mobile raised a lot of plan prices exactly 5 years after their merger with Sprint.
Apparently the Force Majeure section of the deal is very weak, so if there's the slightest upset, they get out of that.
Who else is mourning the end of Star Trek?
So all TV is going to be republican propaganda now. Cool from some perspectives, horrible from the other 9 out of 10 situations.
The most significant thing here is not just the inevitable loss of jobs and the adverse effects of conglomeration/monopolies, but that the most historically filmmaker/artist-friendly studio is now co-owned by MAGA billionaires and the Saudis, direct opponents to democracy.
How much did the Gulf states pledge towards this?
Let's hope that the fears of new owners being rightwing are correct so we can finally see The Censored Eleven in their full glory.
Another nail in Americas coffin.
In 1 or 2 years AI movies will be better in everything. From acting , to camera work to environments to story telling. Check out the quality of some of work already out there. There is a massive shift going on. China is going full speed mode. The film industry will be reshaped. Warner Bros should have used those billions to purchase products like seadance. Otherwise they are out
From what I see on r/stablediffusion, Hollywood has maybe 2 years left, in the optimistic case.
Even if it gets good enough, you're forgetting about everything else that goes into movie making and distribution. Hollywood will keep their hold on media, they just might use AI to increase profits even higher.
i am extremely wary of making any predictions about ai, given what's happened in the last year, but i would put good money on hollywood being around in 2 years. there's much more to the movie industry than slapping some video together.<p>r/stablediffusion seems to be a bit disconnected from reality, to put it nicely.
The vibe I get is like when the Meta VR app store product launched, and there was huge promises and optimism about all the amazing apps and experiences, but when you bought it and actually tried, it was a few juiced up flagship things and a bunch of shovelware.
ehhhh i dunno about that. the stuff i've seen from people, and watched looks much better than most crap hollywood puts out anymore
im seeing a lot more focus on emotions/emotional acting - its incredible. maybe 3 years and most likely from china.
Can we point to a single good piece of longform content from AI before trying to tick a clock on when Hollywood as a whole will end?
I'll pass on slop stories and the quality of the visuals won't change that.