seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China

seen from China
seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Syria

seen from Malaysia
seen from Tunisia
seen from United States
seen from China

seen from Malaysia
seen from China
The end of Colbert isn’t just the end of a late-night show. It’s a red flag.
We should all be asking…
Who owns the stage, and who controls the mic? Because if the answer is “whoever’s in power,” then we’re not just losing TV, we’re losing the foundations of a free society.
Paramount has decided not to replace Colbert next May—effectively canceling the entire Late Night franchise. Some will say it’s a business decision. But in the middle of a high-stakes merger attempt, with government approval on the line and the political winds shifting toward appeasing Trump…you have to ask…What’s really being negotiated here?
What we’re losing isn’t just satire or entertainment. We’re losing shared spaces…places where public intellect, nuance, and accountability used to live.
Colbert’s stage, like those of Cronkite, Letterman, Koppel, and even Leno, was more than a studio set. It was a mirror held up to power and culture. A space where ideas could breathe. Where leaders were challenged, and the audience still expected to think.
And when one of the most visible, consistent critics of authoritarianism is quietly shelved, it stops being just a programming decision.
It becomes a cultural decision.
A political decision.
A power decision.
We’re watching the continued consolidation of media…less ownership, less accountability, less diversity of thought. That’s exactly why government oversight matters. We don’t just need it to ensure fair competition. We need it to protect free speech infrastructure.
Government oversight exists to prevent monopolization and manipulation of the very platforms that inform, entertain, and challenge us. This isn’t just about Colbert. It’s about the American way—and whether we’re willing to defend it.
Now with one of the last mainstream platforms for thoughtful satire gone, what replaces it? Mindless re-runs? More streaming filler? Another social media algorithm selling us distraction over depth?
This isn’t just Paramount’s decision. It’s our collective loss.
The free press, late night satire, and intelligent commentary are part of what makes a democracy function. When those things are silenced…by fear, fatigue, or financial pressure…we should be paying close attention.
Because the stage may be going dark.
And when it does, power fills the silence.
And while silence may be the new strategy. It should never be ours.
Part of the reason Amazon has to work so hard to maintain its monopoly position is that its business model relies on network effects that only obtain at a certain scale. Tech companies like Amazon make money by monopolizing and then selling the data generated from the transactions on their sites. The more people who sign up, the more data is generated; and the more data generated, the more useful this data is for those analyzing it. The monetization of this data is what generates most of Amazon’s returns: Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the most profitable part of the business by some distance. Far from representing its social utility, Amazon’s market value — and Bezos’ personal wealth — reflects its market power. And the rising market power of a small number of larger firms has actually reduced productivity. This concentration has also constrained investment and wage growth as these firms simply don’t have to compete for labor, nor are they forced to innovate in order to outcompete their rivals. In fact, they’re much more likely to use their profits to buy back their own shares, or to acquire other firms that will increase their market share and give them access to more data. Amazon’s recent acquisition of grocery store Whole Foods is likely to be the first of many such moves by tech companies. Rather than the Darwinian logic of compete or die, the tech companies face a different imperative: expand or die. States are supporting this logic with exceptionally loose monetary policy. Low interest rates make it very easy for large companies to borrow to fund mergers and acquisitions. And quantitative easing — unleashed on an unprecedented scale to tackle the pandemic — has simply served to raise equity prices, especially for the big tech companies.
Grace Blakeley, 'Why the Superrich Keep Getting Richer', Jacobin
Gmail no longer being supported on safari is sending me rabid. Fuck off Google, correct yourself you monopolizing bitch.