Today's number: 1 million. That's the total number of domain names registered as of last month. Ed, true story. As I'm trying to unsubscribe because of resist and unsubscribe, I unsubscribed from Amazon One, their healthcare offering. And I don't know if they're listening to me and using it across their other domains, but whenever I go to Amazon Prime now, it suggests erectile dysfunction socks.
Okay. You don't like that one? Fine. Instead of getting a doctor for a same-day appointment, it gives me a picker from a warehouse named Kyle. I told it I had Crohn's and it suggested just turn your body off and on real fast. See what happens.
How are you, Ed?
I'm doing very well. How are you doing, Scott?
I feel very exposed. This resist and unsubscribe thing. A lot of people are saying it's inspiring and a lot of people are saying that I should have been more organized and reached out to them. What do they mean? They should have reached out to them. These people, these politicians who already had a plan or...
Yeah. Or there's activist groups, there's, you know, media personalities who are like, well, this isn't, if you'd reached out to me or these groups that help organize these things. And I'm like, the last thing I want to do is get on the phone with a bunch of media personalities and Brooklynites and get their view on whether Netflix should be on the list or not. That sounds like the seventh circle of hell for me.
I think that's exactly right. And there you have your answer. It was the right choice. You don't want to do that. That's a pain in the ass. So, you did it your way. I think that's the right way to do it.
I did it my way. That's right, Ed. That's right. And today, I'm speaking, no joke, to the senior class president and the senior class at a Michigan high school such that they're all considering collectively unsubscribing from Spotify, but they want to speak to me first. I have never been so intimidated. I got to speak to like 400 seniors at a high school about why they should unsubscribe from Spotify.
I think somehow that's going to, I'm going to end up in the Epstein Files because of that.
By the way, I just want to highlight I don't think anyone on our podcast is in the Epstein Files.
Oh, have you searched your name?
Yeah. Well, no, I haven't. Cara did. I didn't search. I'm not in the Epstein files. Cara did and she called me and said, "Thank God you're not in the Epstein files."
You actually are in the Epstein files. But...
What? It was an email to Epstein saying, "You should read this article." And the article quotes Scott Galloway. It's a guy, one of his buddies saying, "Hey, you should read this article about, I don't know, valuations in big tech or something. It's really good. You should check this out." And then in the article, it says, "Professor Scott Galloway says blah blah blah blah." So, you are in the Epstein files, but you're in there because Epstein's buddy thinks that you have good financial analysis.
It is getting to the point though where if you're not in the Epstein files, then who the [__] are you? You know, you know what I love? So, what is it? The Overton window has been shifted here. I've been seeing all these sex workers on TikTok saying that who's not in the Epstein files? Hunter Biden.
We're going to need to audit your algorithm soon, but please continue.
Hunter Biden loved two things. He loved crack cocaine and having sex with grown women. And he looks wholesome now. He only did meth and he banged sex workers who were actual adult women. And he looks like something out of the Waltons right now. I love how the window has been shifted. And remember Larry Summers, I mean, he was just associated with the Epstein files. He had to step down from all of his positions. He steps down from the board of OpenAI. Now, it turns out there are hundreds of Larry Summers out there. But there are so many at this point, it's sort of like flooding the zone with [__]. You just flood the zone with so many creeps that now being creepy doesn't matter anymore.
What we need is an institution to go through these millions of pages and say, "This is what warrants public scrutiny. This is what warrants a grand jury and an indictment."
Exactly. And this is what doesn't warrant public scrutiny.
And so everything's being mixed together. I mean, everyone's talking about Dr. for Petia. I think he's a [__] distraction.
The cabinet members and the president and someone people have committed child rape. Those are the people we should be talking about.
Anyways, I find the whole thing another example of how people don't appreciate how much benefit we got from institutions we could actually trust. There's no institution we trust to review this and parse out what is credible information that warrants discovery and other information that's just stupid gossip that's going to do nothing but create headaches for people for no [__] reason. And it almost seems intentional to mix them all together. Even the redactions which don't really make any sense. I mean they said that they had a rule for the redactions which was supposed to be victims and children. But then you go through and you see actually a lot of these redactions don't make any sense at all. You have redactions of people who are clearly the perpetrators and they're just blacking out their name. So then you just don't know who sent that very, very alarming email about potentially some sort of pedophilic or creepy, just awful behavior. Whatever it is, I mean the redactions don't make any sense.
I'm totally with you. This whole thing is just a total shitshow and it seems like that is the point.
Well, I forget his name, but the guy who sort of invented modern propaganda for the GRU said that he said the key is put out lies, put out truth whenever Putin or someone else is accused of something, put out some truth, put out some lies, accuse everybody all the time and just make it such that people are totally confused and just give up and there is no objective truth anymore. And that's what this is.
And it's working. It's working really well.
100%. And because we don't have institutions we can trust, they can say, "Okay, we're not going to release the names of the victims unless they want their names released, but if there is an individual who there's credible evidence in these files that this person has impregnated an 11-year-old, we're going to let the markets know through a grand jury indictment of this person." And the American public has a right to know if the president of the United States has been mentioned 5,700 times or if his cabinet secretary of commerce claims very stridently that he wanted nothing to do with this guy and still continued to have, you know, I mean even that you could argue maybe that's not for public discovery or scrutiny but instead they've just flooded the zone like nothing else and everyone's just confused and had it.
Well, we could talk about Epstein files for days. But we have some very interesting market news to get into today. Today we are discussing why software stocks sold off last week. We're also discussing the future of the entertainment industry. We got some updates there and also Anthropic's unbelievable marketing win with their Super Bowl ad. But to start, let's discuss what happened to software. Software stocks got crushed last week. Cloudflare fell 7%, at last fell nearly 9%. Shopify fell 14%. As a whole, software companies lost roughly 12% of their value in just one week. That dragged the NASDAQ 100 into its worst 3-day slide since Liberation Day. The selloff was triggered by a wave of new tools that spooked investors. Anthropic rolled out industry-specific products for legal, finance, and customer service. OpenAI also launched a more powerful multi-agent version of its coding tool and a new platform to help companies deploy AI agents. Meanwhile, a new AI assistant called OpenClaw can now execute tasks directly through messaging apps like WhatsApp. The fear is that if companies can build their own software with AI, well then why will you keep paying companies to make it for them? So Scott, just absolute chaos in the software market right now. All of the big software names are trading down. You look at the software ETF, IGV, it's down 20% in the past month. Tons of selling happening right now. I have a view on this and I've actually gone out into the market and taken some action, but I will start with your reactions to what happened last week. And then we can get into the details.
What you just said is a thinly veiled way of saying you buy these stocks you think are being unfairly punished would be my guess.
I think what you're going to see is that it's going to put margin pressure on these companies and it's going to create a new wave of startups. I think that we talk about Figma and Adobe. Adobe's sort of Mercedes. Figma is sort of Toyota. Somebody's going to come up with BYD and that is they're going to use AI to come up with 80% of Adobe for 10% of the price. But at the same time, I still think Adobe is going to be a cash machine because you'll continue to use Salesforce for a long time because if you invest all that time in understanding the interface and getting good at it and your employees and your sales teams know how to input data into Salesforce, unless something is monumentally better and it's been mandated from the top levels of the company, they're not switching over. So I think you're right. These companies have probably been overpunished. What I think the net net though will be is margin compression because there's going to be so many startups offering an Old Navy version of these software platforms at a fraction of the cost from overfunded startups where a 2, 10, 20, 30 person team can spin up a SaaS platform at a fraction of the cost. It will put, I think, margin pressure on these folks.
I think margin pressure is exactly right. I think that is the danger here. What is interesting though is that the market's reaction has not been one of we're going to see reduced margins or we're going to see some more pressure on margins. The market's reaction is telling us software is dead. AI has killed software. So software stocks down 20% in the past month, just one month alone. The forward PE has gone down from 35 times in 2025 to 20, lowest level since 2014. We're seeing huge amounts of selling pressure to the point where it's kind of obvious now. Like this isn't just, oh, we might trim our holdings. This is like sell everything. This is what we would call panic selling. To me, this is very similar to what happened when ChatGPT came onto the scene. And I don't know if you remember what happened, but ChatGPT shows up and everyone decides that search is dead now. Specifically, Google is dead now. And you saw Google stock cratered 40% in the year that ChatGPT was released. It actually then started to continue to slide as more products were announced from ChatGPT. Since it bottomed out, Google has obviously been on a massive run. They have risen 280%. And essentially what they did was they learned from ChatGPT. They invested more in AI. They integrated AI into their products. They came up with their own AI product. Their search revenue actually increased. It's up 50% since ChatGPT was released. They got more usage and now Google is everyone agrees the winner of AI at least for the moment. It's now worth $4 trillion in market cap. It is sort of with Apple competing for second most valuable company in the world. And that was an example where the market was confronted with this new technology that really freaked them out and they decided that they just were going to do away with their models, do away with rationality and they just decided [__] it, let's sell. That's exactly what happened and it made Google one of the best buys and we recommended it about a year ago. Similar thing happened by the way with TikTok. TikTok comes onto the scene. It's really exciting. It's really popular. Everyone decides Instagram is dead. Meta stock falls 70%. Then it bottoms out. Then it rips up more than 600% in the next few years. They come out with a product that is very similar to TikTok in Instagram Reels. Now Instagram Reels has almost the same number of users as TikTok does. Very similar dynamic. So I think that this is the same thing is happening here and that is we do have a new technology and it could be quite disruptive but the amount of selling pressure that we're seeing in the markets is just indicative of again panic, chaos, confusion and there are many reasons why I think software isn't dead. You know, the first reason would be there's nothing stopping these companies from integrating AI into their existing products. I mean, this is the same thing we saw with Google. Just because ChatGPT comes along doesn't mean that Google can't get into AI. In fact, that's exactly what they did do and it worked really well. The other thing that you point out, which I think is a massive point that people are not really recognizing. If you're going to cancel an enterprise contract with a software company, say Salesforce, that's not like a small deal. That's like a gigantic pain in the ass. The switching costs are massive. It takes on average more than half a year to find a new service provider. It also has to go to committee. You need to have a bunch of people, executives who have to sign off on the decision. It also costs money. If you're going to terminate the contract, then you have to pay 100% of the remaining fees. This is something that companies do not want to do. You do not want to change your enterprise SaaS provider because it sucks to do it. And this by the way is why these companies have been such great buyers in the past because the moats are gigantic. It's always been a thing. The switching costs are tremendous. So in order to switch from one of those providers, you need to have a huge body of evidence to show you and to show the committee that yes, going with Claude or going with the other AI tool is a better idea. The other thing they're counting out is the trust they have with these companies, the relationships they have with these companies. They've been working with these companies for years. So again, the idea that oh, there's a new tool. Oh, there's a new startup that they're going to help us with our enterprise SaaS. Meanwhile, we've been working with these companies for years and we trust them and we trust their enterprise security. I just don't think that it's realistic. I think that the selling pressure is way too strong right now. I think markets are overreacting. To me, this is a perfect buying opportunity.
I think you're right. And the reality is you want your emotions are your enemy. And when you hear this news and the narrative, and it's a solid one, that AI is going to undermine all SaaS platforms. I get it. You have to be thoughtful about valuations. But the analogy I would use is that when I went to UCLA, everyone talked about the freshman 10. And that is the majority of people end up in the dorms. I forgot to send in my deposit for my dorms, and I was so freaked out. My mom was going to freak out because she wanted me to move out so badly that I rushed a fraternity and ended up getting into a fraternity just because I needed a place to live. It's neither here nor there, but anyways. People want to know about my history. People want to know what music I was listening to in the 80s. R.E.M., Lloyd Cole, English Beat, Tom Petty, you know, Damn the Torpedoes. It was really unfortunate that you weren't born in an earlier age yet.
They called it the freshman 10. And that is you got a meal plan. You paid like, I don't know, I forget it was 1,100 bucks and you got three meals a day in your dorm. Sproul, Hedrick, whatever. And you just go down, you roll down in your pajamas and they had cereal and good food. It was all crazy, crazy fattening. And the notion would be okay. And I remember even someone writing an article saying there's all sorts of different options on campus for food. To eat somewhere else was a hassle and expensive and required a huge change in consumer behavior. That's the way I see this and that is there might be a new AI company that comes out that is a better CRM for half the price of Salesforce. Good luck trying to get your entire sales force to figure out a way to input and figure out the interface and the mobile application. You know, they're going to say, "Fuck that. Let's just stick with Salesforce." Now, the next time they're negotiating next year with a huge site license for, I don't know, McKinsey or whoever who uses Salesforce to manage all their potential clients of people who think that someone with a PhD in a Northern European accent knows any more about their [__] business than they do. The procurement department at McKinsey will use all of these AI CRM startups to negotiate a lower price.
Yeah, but I don't think they're going to swap out of Cloudflare. All of these companies do such a good job of creating friction to exit.
Try to. I remember when I was not running but I started my Red Envelope. I think we were using Oracle and BroadVision.
And Oracle was powering our database, but trying to switch out of Oracle, they purposely make it almost impossible.
Yeah, these companies do a really good job of making it easy for you to sign up. Like I find when I check out of a hotel, they make it so easy for me to pay. They're like, "Okay, we've already taken the payment." What's really hard is if they charge you for breakfast you didn't order, it takes, you know, several calls and years to get your money back and it's not worth it. It's the same thing here. These companies will experience margin pressure because the procurement departments will have a lot of options and they'll threaten it, but they're not going to tell their 4,000 media department at L'Oreal to start using some other software program to figure out how to track clients or payables or whatever. Right now, these companies, their revenues are growing and they're actually growing at double-digit rates. So, it's not that people are upset with the product right now. They actually like the product and every company that has an enterprise relationship with one of these software companies, they're going to be trying to find reasons to continue the relationship because it's too much of a pain to get out of it. They don't want to do that. In addition, they're going to be integrating AI into the products themselves. So, it's not as if Salesforce suddenly doesn't have AI. Salesforce is investing a lot in AI right now and they're going to roll out those products to their customers. So I think it's a lot of hysteria over something that is not that meaningful and you know it's rare that you have these moments where there is such momentum in the selling pressure among the markets and so I think these are the moments where you want to go in and buy. Mark Mahaney calls these kinds of companies DHQs, dislocated high-quality companies. That is you want to find good companies that are experiencing some level of dislocation. I have a few names that I have bought. And who knows what will happen to the prices because the markets are going crazy right now.
What did you buy? Inquiring minds want to know.
So I bought three stocks. The first stock was Adobe. And just a disclosure, Adobe has sponsored this podcast in the past. I made this pick last week and I stand by it. It's down 9% since Monday night. It's down nearly 40% in the past year, trading at 17 times earnings. The S&P average is 29 times earnings. Its 5-year average, its 5-year PE average is 37. So, the assumption is AI is just going to kill Adobe overnight. But again, this is a large enterprise company.
Wow. It's at a 5-year low.
It's getting absolutely decimated right now. But it's used by 98% of Fortune 500s. We've also talked about this with the research team that they have this major tailwind which is short-form video. Everyone's trying to hire video editors right now and every video editor is using Adobe Premiere. They've got a lot of things going for them and they're going to start integrating AI. So, I think Adobe is a buy right now. We've discussed that. I also think Salesforce is a buy. It fell around 11% at first. It kind of recovered again. We'll see how it trades in the next few days. You got to move quickly here. It could be that by the time this episode airs, it's back up, but it's down 45% in the past year, trading at 27 times earnings. Its 5-year average is 73. It's growing at double digits. Its RPOs are up 12%. Again, this is like a massive enterprise SaaS company, which again has really large moats. My third pick that I've bought is ServiceNow. Trading at nine times sales, 5-year average of 16. People just assume AI's killed it, but again, they're integrating AI. They've got $1 billion in AI revenue in the pipeline for 2026. They're integrating with Anthropic and OpenAI. They've signed contracts with these companies. So, those are some buys that I've gone with. Again, do whatever you'd like. I think that these are good opportunities. And then the other thing that you could consider right now is just like buying the ETF which is called IGV, just the whole software ETF. But my view is you know it's possible that there are going to be some losers here. So I think it's better to go in and start picking some winners. But that's what I've gone for. I also would have gone for Microsoft as well but most people have just huge amounts of Microsoft exposure already. But that's gotten pummeled as well. And again, it doesn't really make sense because Microsoft owns a huge portion of OpenAI already. So if OpenAI is going to kill Microsoft, well, Microsoft already owns it, so it's going to be totally fine.
I really like your thesis. I was asked, I didn't think of software companies. I was asked a couple months ago, what are the companies that if you had to bet, if you had to go short companies because of AI boom, which companies would you pick? And I picked two. I picked OnlyFans. And I think I told you like 6 months ago, someone called me and said, "Do you want to be a part of an investor group to buy OnlyFans?" I'm like, "One, no. And two, why would you think I'd be interested in this?"
And why wouldn't they think you're interested?
I've never signed up for a porn site or anything like that. Although, those gay hockey players from Harvest Moon or whatever it's called, Rivalry, I would definitely like $4.99 a minute. I'd do that like, "Hey, I love your program." Anyways, I'm unsubscribing from HBO Max and so I'm binging the gay hockey thing and I'm rethinking everything, Ed. I'm rethinking everything. Anyways, back to what were we talking about? Oh, AI. OnlyFans. I think it's [__]. I think you're going to be able to get a really hot person, you know, doing whatever it is they do on OnlyFans for 3% of the price with AI. And the other company, it's not really a software company, it's a research company. It's the company that acquired my company. I think Gartner is [__]. And that is every research report they put out, their events are still really powerful, but every research report they put out, I feel like almost any IT manager or any CTO could get a similar level of feedback with a two-minute prompt. And their stock in the last year, it's off 72%. My guess is an activist is going to come in there and say you need to lay off 70% of the people and use AI and have a kind of what Figma is to Adobe, Gartner's going to need to come up with a lower-cost product. But I hadn't thought about the software guys getting this badly hurt. But if you use Adobe, you're fluent in Adobe. It's its own language.
It's its own job requirement.
And we like Figma. All the kids are using Figma design.
Design schools. It's also gotten crushed.
Yeah, I own Figma. Anyways, we should timestamp this and come back in 3, 6 and 12 months and see how these stocks are doing. ServiceNow is an interesting one. I've spoken at their conferences. But I don't know that much about the company.
Yeah, it just again massively oversold. But your Gartner point is an interesting one because Gartner would be one of those companies that is in that bucket of companies that have been absolutely crushed due to the AI thesis. But this is where I think stock picking actually does come in handy and it actually is useful. I mean, I know that we're usually pro ETFs, just, you know, diversified indices, but when something like this happens where a technology comes in and it just decimates the whole narrative of an industry, and it's not unreasonable. I mean, the idea that AI is going to massively disrupt software is a very reasonable pick. The point being, there are going to be winners and losers. It's possible that there will be losers in this, which is why you want to go in and figure out, okay, what are the winners here? Because right now, everyone is being undervalued right now. Everyone is getting sold regardless of what you're doing with your business. And that's why I've chosen a few names as opposed to going for the whole bucket of companies themselves because I do think it is reasonable to look at what's happening and say, "Okay, well, this company isn't taking AI very seriously. This company's product actually isn't very differentiated and their relationships with their enterprises isn't as strong as some others. Therefore, this one actually will get burned." And maybe Gartner is one of those companies. But it is a moment where it's like, okay, if everyone's selling at some point, you do need to go in there and start, as Buffett says, being greedy while everyone else is fearful.
We'll be right back after the break. And if you're enjoying the show so far, send it to a friend and please follow us if you haven't already.
Support for the show comes from Fundrise. For the past 70 years, there's been a room in finance that most people couldn't enter. A room where you could have invested in some of the biggest names in tech companies including Airbnb and Uber before their multi-billion dollar IPOs. I'm talking about venture capital. But unless you had millions of dollars and the right connections, the door to the venture capital room was closed. You were stuck waiting in line with everyone else. But recently, Fundrise took a sledgehammer to that door when they launched their venture capital product and made it available to anyone with a minimum investment of just $10. Fundrise says their mission is to give everyone the chance to invest in the best tech and AI companies before they go public. Visit fundrise.com/profg to check out Fundrise's venture portfolio and start investing in minutes. All investments involve risk, including the potential loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This is a paid advertisement.
Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. It's a shame when the best B2B marketing gets wasted on the wrong audience. Like, imagine running an ad for cataract surgery on Saturday morning cartoons or running a promo for this show on a video about Roblox or something. No offense to our Gen Alpha listeners, but that would be a waste of anyone's ad budget. So, when you want to reach the right professionals, you can use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals and 130 million decision makers according to their data. That's where it stands apart from other ad buys. You can target buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority, skills, company revenue. All so you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience. That's why LinkedIn ads boast one of the highest B2B return on ad spend of all online ad networks. Seriously, all of them. Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one. Just go to linkedin.com/scott. That's linkedin.com/scott. Terms and conditions apply.
Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public, you can build a multi-asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, and options. And now, generated assets, which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% a year over year. You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one-of-a-kind index, and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities. Completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com/profg and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com/profg. Paid for by Public Investing. Brokerage services by Open to the Public Investing Inc., Member FINRA and SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors LLC, SEC registered advisor. Generated assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com/disclosures.
We're back with Prof G Markets. It was a busy week in the entertainment industry. Disney finally named its next CEO, Josh D'Amaro. He is the head of its experiences division. He'll take the helm from Bob Iger next month. Meanwhile, Netflix and Warner Brothers Discovery executives were on Capitol Hill defending their planned mega merger. What started as an antitrust hearing quickly veered into a broader fight over political bias. Senator Eric Schmitt went as far as accusing Netflix of producing, quote, "the wokest content in the history of the world." So Scott, we've got a leadership shakeup at Disney, new CEO going to replace Bob Iger, and then we had this antitrust hearing in Washington investigating the acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery. Let's start with the antitrust hearing and let's start with just some of the highlights from that hearing. Let's play a clip.
Sen. Hawley, Netflix has no political agenda of any kind. I can tell you that.
Well, then why is your children's program so full of this highly sexualized, highly controversial agenda? I don't understand it. It seems strange to me.
Um, respectfully, sir, it's because it's inaccurate. We have millions of hours of children's programming. I get...
You're saying it's not there. You don't feature trans characters, trans storylines, trans themes. It's not in your programming.
I'm saying we feature a wide variety of stories and programs to meet a wide variety of people's tastes.
Why does almost half of your children's program feature this highly controversial, highly sexualized material? Why? That just seems strange to me.
Netflix content is synonymous for the modern phenomenon of race swapping, both historical and real and fictional characters. Netflix continues to push sexual and gender theory on kids. And maybe this is what was being referred to earlier. 41% of G-rated kid-approved series contain LGBTQIA+ content.
You have a wide range of programming on HBO. Name one program that is designed to appeal to conservatives.
We don't design our programming to appeal to...
I can think of a lot that are designed to go to liberals. Name one. Let me ask you, do you think CNN is fair and balanced?
Sir, I'm not involved with CNN and in fact they're not part of this transaction.
Uh, remind you this was an antitrust hearing. Scott, your reactions.
JD Vance goes to Europe and lectures EU leaders on their lack of free speech. And now the Republican party is claiming that private companies have an agenda and they're not allowed to. So, to be fair, CNN is biased. Fox is biased and private media companies are allowed to have a bias because consumers have a bias. Netflix is probably the most politically neutral of all of them. They were getting [__] two years ago for airing Dave Chappelle because progressives were freaked out about what they felt were anti-trans comments. So which is it? I know Ted Sarandos. For the life of me, I could not figure out what Ted Sarandos's politics are. And I think he wants to keep it that way. So this notion somehow, and also I don't even need to know the data and I know that it's [__] that 50% of kids' content features an LGBTQ. That is not their agenda. But that's just they're just trying to get kids to spend more and more time watching Netflix. They don't have any sort of agenda along those lines. And even if they did, guess what? They're allowed to. The antitrust is a real issue here. And that is if Netflix also owns HBO, do they consolidate the market at the high-end art-house subscription content? That's a real issue. If Paramount/CBS is allowed to own CNN and TikTok, is that also an antitrust concern? That's a real issue. But this is what's going on. The Ellisons give money to Republican lawmakers. The Ellisons are trying to come up with a reason for Netflix to not be able to acquire Time Warner. And so they are ginning up a bunch of Republican senators to create some sort of controversy or reason why Netflix should not be able to acquire Time Warner. There are reasons why neither Paramount/CBS, the Ellisons, should be allowed to acquire it. There are reasons Netflix should not be allowed to acquire it. They are antitrust. It has nothing to do with the bias or the lack thereof of their content. And this is Senators Hawley and I forget the other guy who are just [__] coin-operated who've been told by the Ellisons we don't want to have to pay more. So go create controversy and some sort of bias among people who have absolutely no ability to think critically about when regulators should weigh in and they shouldn't. Your Quentin Tarantino films have a [__] bias. They're allowed to sell to whoever they want. This isn't about an editorial bias. This is about a concentration of power that would lead to higher prices, of which there are real concerns. And Senator Booker actually thoughtfully tried to address these concerns. But instead, you have coin-operated senators with the Ellisons' heads so far up their ass you can barely see their legs dangling out of their asses trying to pretend they give a flying [__] about free speech and that somehow Netflix is too progressive. And the right answer to, oh, CNN doesn't have a bias, it's more fair and balanced, he should have said, I believe it's more fair and balanced than Fox. And I believe Fox has the right to do whatever the [__] they want. And people can decide if they want to watch or have advertising. This was supposed to be about concentration of power that transfers capital and power from consumers and workers to shareholders. That is a real concern from both bidders. But this is how it's supposed to work. Whoever shows up with the biggest check gets pre-approved for the acquisition and then there is review across the DOJ, the FCC and CFIUS around security concerns and antitrust. Instead, we're thinking somehow that they're not allowed to have a bias even when there isn't one. Anyways, thank you for my TED talk.
It's completely ridiculous. And again, it was a hearing on antitrust and it just completely devolved into a trial on wokeness. And I feel like this is yet another reminder, and I know we say this all the time, of how stupid these Senate hearings are. Like, every time these hearings happen, it's just a giant display of political theater. None of it even matters. And I think it's so funny that these people, these Republican senators default to the wokeness argument, probably because they don't really know where to land on the antitrust argument. Because the trouble is that you've got all these different players in here and they don't really know who to side with because on the one hand like oh maybe Netflix is woke so maybe they should be against them but on the other hand Paramount's controlled by the Ellisons and the Ellisons are big...
Tech, and but you know, historically they've been against big tech, but also, oh wait, the Ellisons have been donating to Donald Trump. So who are we supposed to side with? So it's almost like wokeness is just the default backup calling card that you immediately knee-jerk reaction go to when you don't really know what the [__] you're talking about. And that seems to be what has happened in this Senate hearing, which was supposed to be, again, what do you do when an extremely large entertainment company is purchasing another extremely large entertainment company, and most of these entertainment channels are now going to be housed under one company that has like very legitimate and serious monopoly concerns. There are also decent arguments on the other side about the role of YouTube and Instagram and on TikTok and all these digital platforms, but it's almost like that stuff is boring to them. They don't really understand that. That's business stuff. We don't really care. I'd rather talk about LGBTQ and transgender actors in children's shows because that's something that I know my supporters are really going to get riled up about. Is it going to have any impact on the transaction? Is it going to change the trajectory of monopolization in America? [__] no. But it doesn't matter because again, it's all for the clips. It's all for the drama. It's all for the show. And this was just another reminder of that.
