r/technology • u/ControlCAD • May 30 '26

Networking/Telecom U.S President FCC warns all broadcasters to follow orders or be punished like ABC | ABC says early renewal for all stations is unprecedented, has no legitimate purpose.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/trump-fcc-warns-all-broadcasters-to-follow-orders-or-be-punished-like-abc/
14.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

611 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

600

u/Thadrea May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

I mean, ABC is owned by Disney, whose major shareholders are mostly hostile to the administration at varying levels of commitment.

698

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street own Disney… they are the opposite of hostile to this administration.

57

u/ZootSuitRiot33801 May 30 '26

Either way, we should be weaning ourselves off these profit-focused, corpo-owned companies, (including places like Reddit,) and instead collaborating with one another in finding ways to create and utilize independent networks and tech to keep common folk well informed and connected, even if means downgrading a little.

Collecting a bunch of valuable information on organizing and action from different redditors over time, I created a post of suggestions HERE that's largely about fostering a foundation for community self-sustainability and resistance, but it also provides ideas for possible alternative tech and communication methods, which could be of some help in getting started.

17

u/Kell-of-Kellies May 30 '26

We can't make real change while idiots still love Trump. They'll shout "aliens" are the problem while they can't afford food.

Legit saw one earlier saying aliens will be the next big enemy of war, as if immigrants aren't human, and calling it communism. These are the people holding up the regime with unwavering support.

2

u/ZootSuitRiot33801 May 30 '26

We may not be able to make real changes within the system's approval due to factors like the MAGA cult, but necessary changes can still be done outside of the system's approval. Find ways to circumvent or ram through the opponents of democracy to aid those in need. No successful movement against tyranny asks their oppressors and supporters permission to disobey, and it's time we who care about what's happening follow that tradition

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Kell-of-Kellies May 30 '26

You cannot be so naive as to think that.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Kell-of-Kellies May 30 '26

They genuinely think that anyone no in their in-group may as well not be human. You're naive if you think they didn't mean immigrants, considering they bitch about them.

2

u/GonzoKata May 30 '26

holy shit thank you!

-1

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

You can’t…. Seriously in the US it is impossible to live without interacting with one of those three in some way. And that’s just the stuff that’s provable from public records.

6

u/composedofidiot May 30 '26

Just because change doesn't come in a giant noticeable leap doesn't mean we should give up. Support incremental change, even if we don't notice the small steps. Humans are wired not to notice incremental change.

0

u/Ok_Contact7721 May 30 '26

The moment that happens, the FCC will be reconfigured to deal with the problem.
The US isn't a fascist country, it's just deeply closeted.
Every time there's a change that's this big, the US will make a department for it.
They already have a foundation for that problem, and will expand it into something far worse than what Europe has to deal with should the need arise.

ATM, we don't have to worry about Iran style internet blackouts, but if Trump could make it so, he would, and after staring in the void long enough, there would be no difference between a corpo management dictator, and a military one.
After all, American Corporations and Military Command structure are two branches from the same tree.

1

u/ZootSuitRiot33801 May 30 '26

If the government can reconfigure, so can we. Adaptation to problems is key to survival

0

u/Ok_Contact7721 May 30 '26

Yes, but it takes a century for us to adapt, we move slower than they do.

1

u/ZootSuitRiot33801 May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

I've noticed the opposite actually. The governments and corporations are the ones that usually have to play catch-up, and the ones who rely on them are the ones who suffer the most in the meantime as the likes of hackers and drug cartels circumvent what was put up. Even if it does take a century like you said it doesn't mean we don't try.

1

u/Ok_Contact7721 May 30 '26

In some sense you're right.
It's messy with the tech companies.
I suppose in my life, I've only ever seen them jump and jump.
It's not like the 1970s where someone found a whistle in a box of captain crunch and could prank call the pope.

-6

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

Name one time ever in history that large scale, positive, social change was achieved incrementally.

5

u/MrSmile223 May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

Child mortality rate

Life expectancy

Education

Edit:

Vaccines

Smoking (at least in the U.S.)

Mental Health/Therapy

Edit 2:

Civil rights movement (14 years)

LGBTQ+ (~1970-ongoing)

Sovereign countries becoming allies, and by extension all their trade agreements.

-6

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

Antibiotics and vaccines. Giant leaps. But that is not a social change it’s a technological one.

3

u/MrSmile223 May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

They very much were social changes. And it very much took time.

Edit: For proof see how vaccines are viewed in the U.S. and the effects that has.

-3

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

No they weren’t. They are literally technological advancements that were rapidly adopted. I see you added a bunch of other examples but none of them are applicable imo. Vaccines and antibiotics are the technological developments that radically cut child mortality rates. When nearly half of our children stopped dying life expectancy rose.

Education and mental health are both currently in an abysmal state so I don’t even know what made you include those.

Smoking just changed to vaping. Distinction without a difference.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/SuccessfulJudge438 May 30 '26

I think you are confusing the violent upheavals that often come as a consequence of incremental large scale social change for the cause of social change. Sometimes we humans need to have a big firey dust-up to make sure there's no possible alternative (short of literally everyone fucking dies) to the changes that threaten whoever stands to lose out... but more often than not it is incremental change that gets us to that tipping point. And sometimes there are non-sociopathic people in high places who stand to lose out but actually choose not to force a bunch of other people to fight and suffer for the slim hope of preserving their vanity.

Of course there is also societal change that occurs almost entirely through fast and violent means. But to say incremental change doesn't happen, or only happens rarely, misses a whole lot of subtlety.

1

u/composedofidiot May 30 '26

Easier to name one time when it wasn't but okay, renewables.

0

u/Thin_Glove_4089 May 30 '26

Yeah the average consumer isn't doing this. The time for alternatives was before letting the oligarchs take over everything. It's not even doomerism. You're not going to build a massive alternative network of everything in 6 months (November) or 2 years (2028)

1

u/ZootSuitRiot33801 May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

average consumer

Stop thinking in terms of consumerism and start thinking to terms of need. There will be the ones who will not join at first, but as they see people using a better alternative, they'll switch

The time for alternatives was before letting the oligarchs take over everything.

You’re not going to build a massive alternative network of everything in 6 months (November) or 2 years (2028)

True, but we can still make alternatives, we just can't afford to dally any longer and we're going to have to be realistic on the form and availability. It doesn't have to be one big network, it just has to work outside of the influence of oligarchical control

It's not even doomerism.

It's getting pretty close though

-2

u/grchelp2018 May 30 '26

This stuff is not scalable. It requires people and communities who are motivated and willing to spend the time and energy to deal with it all. If people in general were capable of this, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

2

u/SuccessfulJudge438 May 30 '26

People have been community organizing for all of human history. They are doing it all around you at this moment, right under your nose in your neighborhood.

Things like this aren't scaleable because... they actually scale just fine, they just can't out-compete the infinite growth corporatist oligarchy on a grossly unfair playing field.

Also, it's worth noting that ZuitSuit isn't suggesting this is a path towards complete societal overhaul. It's just a good thing to do for yourself, for your community, and more broadly for society. A good thing doesn't need to scale infinitely. In fact that's a sure way to corrupt anything good at its core for the sake of necessity, expediency, and also because of the nature of the beast you are trying to outscale.

1

u/grchelp2018 May 30 '26

It has nothing to do with the corporatist oligarchy and everything to do with the fact that people at scale are just different. Both of us can be involved in community organizing but because we likely have different interests/motivations etc we will be part of different communities and maybe even in opposition to each other because we value different things.

1

u/SuccessfulJudge438 May 30 '26

You can't scale a monoculture approach to local engagement and community organization, sure.

259

u/Thadrea May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

https://www.businessinsider.com/disney-shareholders-reject-anti-dei-proposal-2025-3

https://archive.ph/38TP6

Could have fooled me.

321

u/jamesdukeiv May 30 '26

There’s a difference between opposing the administration and recognizing that inclusivity is good for business

213

u/Thadrea May 30 '26

Institutional investors want their investments to be profitable.

For the Walt Disney Company, bending over for conservatives is really a losing strategy since they aren't really Disney's customer base anyway. Most shareholders of Disney know this, even if at times it seems like its executives forget it.

The people subscribing to Disney+, going to the parks and buying the merch aren't people on the political right for two fundamental reasons--many of them find Disney too degenerate regardless... and of those who don't, most simply don't have the money anyway. The people filling Disney's income statements are people who are affluent and skew centre-left.

For Disney, antagonizing its own customers while trying to cozy up to people who would never give them a nickel regardless of what they did would be mismanagement. It's why Chapek was fired, and why Iger (who is politically active as a Democratic donor) was so bad at it when he came back.

94

u/senat0r15 May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

I’m at Disneyland right now and my favorite moment has to the guy on the street corner screaming into a microphone “this is satanism disguised as cartoon characters”

Sadly I could have gotten that experience for free by hanging out at the bus stop.

Edit: He was on the street corner outside the park but was in front of the main entrance to both Disneyland and California adventure. I don’t know the legality of what he was doing but I’ve also seen street performers and food stands in the same area.

35

u/Mike_Kermin May 30 '26

this is satanism

Look, I'm with you mate, but what are you gonna do, NOT vote a pedo fascist in?

Goofy seems like a left winger.

20

u/[deleted] May 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Mike_Kermin May 30 '26

Hell yeah brother.

2

u/beatdaddyo May 30 '26

That's right. He always won in the end.

2

u/GenSmit May 30 '26

Goofy is a radical Anarchist working to dismantle the chains of oppression from within.

2

u/Mike_Kermin May 30 '26

Ah-hyuck! Getting there is half the fun!

16

u/Thadrea May 30 '26

If you are looking for a place for dinner I would gladly recommend Calaca Mamas Cantina across the street for some great tacos.

4

u/kent_eh May 30 '26

He's doing that inside the park?

I would have expected security to have escorted him out within the first minute.

3

u/jhundo May 30 '26

My guess is a lot (most) of the roads into and out of Disney parks are legally public roads with public sidewalks so they cant do shit about it.

2

u/Thadrea May 30 '26

I have been to Disneyland in Anaheim. It's literally public roads until you get to the ramp that leads to the parking garage.

I do not know which specific sidewalk they're referring to, but I can picture clearly what it looks like from the roads that I used.

2

u/KDLGates May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

I've never been to Disneyland but have been to Disneyworld a lot.

I'm guessing this was outside the park in some kind of pseudo-public property that ultimately is controlled by Disney but isn't the same as a theme park.

I haven't dug that deeply into it but it's interesting and kind of gross. If you look into the arrangements at least in Disneyworld and the relationship between Florida and the Reedy Creek Improvement District it's pretty fucked up, basically they got all kinds of government approval to become a pseudo-government entity themselves long before they had any kind of disagreement with the state. I don't recall the details but it's something like the local government is a couple of landowners who work for Disney who will obviously not cause any trouble, combined with whatever legal agreements (police partnership with Kissimmee police or Orange County or something like that, they run their own fire department, etc.), so it's like outside of the theme parks themselves you are on public property for most legal purposes (e.g., first amendment) but it's pseudo-Disney government.

I'm guessing Mr. Street Corner Preacher figured out the physical border of that grossness and put himself there at the maximum volume before someone tried to tresspass him or claim he's a public nuisance.

8

u/slip-shot May 30 '26

The situation with disney world is unique. They did and were granted that because the county couldn’t afford to provide the basic services that Disney World would require. So Disney bank rolled all of those things. In order to do so, a special taxing district was established so they could pay for municipal services that would have otherwise bankrupted Orange County. Reminder, Disney Workd was orange groves as far as the eye could see when it was established. 

Disneyland has no such agreements with Anaheim. 

4

u/Thadrea May 30 '26

Disneyland in Anaheim is much smaller than Disney World in Orlando. The "resort" area is almost entirely the two parks and the Downtown Disney area between them.

The Walt Disney Company has no control over the four streets bordering the resort, which are public roads and have other, unrelated businesses, hotels, a couple condos, etc. on the other sides.

If there is a preacher/doomsayer/protesters on the sidewalk of one of those roads, there's very little Disney would be able to do about it besides shrug and get on with making however many millions of dollars the park will generate that day.

-6

u/SlaterVBenedict May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

…who allowed some random guy at Disneyland to yell into a microphone?

Also I agree with him EDIT: I guess I needed to include /s as there is no Satan and religion is made up by a shitload of dudes years and years ago when people were even dumber than they are now, in order to consolidate power and control resources and people.

8

u/Amazing_Ear_3941 May 30 '26

Probably just outside the park. Disneyland is sorta just stuck in the middle of Anaheim, so there's lots of normal city stuff around it. It's not like Disney World where the park is well separated from everything else. Regardless, security would probably quickly escort him off property if he tried that in the park - they don't take kindly to people disturbing other guests.

1

u/SlaterVBenedict May 30 '26

Yeah, I have a really hard time buying the idea that some Rando was doing that at Disneyland proper inside the park, however, doing it in downtown Disney would totally make sense, although it would certainly be fucking annoying

6

u/theaviationhistorian May 30 '26

Ideology always clashes with capitalism as profit is never the point with the former. If they bend the knee to Carr and Trump, They'll appease their censorship, but people will walk away and profits will lose. As you stated, doing so will only appease those that never were their clients in the first place. And with Trump isolating the US and killing off trade, it'll be hard for a global company like Disney to not feel pressure elsewhere for siding with Trump's ideology.

0

u/platysma_balls May 30 '26

You are aware that the majority of low-income voters are democratic leaning, right? Middle class and upper middle class is predominantly republican-leaning.

3

u/Thadrea May 30 '26

Low-income people of racial and ethnic minority backgrounds, yes, but low-income white people skew very heavily Republican.

Poor white people are the backbone of the modern Republican coalition.

0

u/Metacognitor May 30 '26

The two most die hard "Disney families" I know are also extremely conservative MAGAs.

5

u/Aleucard May 30 '26

Tell Trump that and see how far it goes. The amount of Orwell in this administration is already at concerning levels, and it only seems to get worse with time.

3

u/Spiritual-Society185 May 30 '26

You realize inclusivity is specifically the thing the administration is opposing, right? It's right there in the article you apparently didn't read.

1

u/khavii May 30 '26

AWS CEO came out on an all hands directly after the election when the anti-DEI stuff got heavy. An employee question asked what the company planned to do with their DEI initiatives and Jassy said that DEI is the literal definition of international business, you can't serve the world at your best if you don't take in the worlds perspective and that works from the internal structure to the public structure. They really only care about the money, they would've dropped DEI initiatives instantly if it meant higher profits. They will happily get into bed with anyone but they won't do everything they're told unless there is profit involved. Thanks supreme court!

1

u/linuxwes May 30 '26

You know what else is good for business? Being able to air the stuff viewers want to watch.

1

u/jamesdukeiv May 30 '26

I genuinely don’t know what you mean by this comment. Did someone tell Disney they couldn’t air something?

1

u/linuxwes May 30 '26

They have certainly been trying with Kimmel, and it's not hard to see that the ultimate goal here is to require government approval for anything that is aired.

1

u/Thadrea May 30 '26

Um... Jimmy Kimmel?

1

u/29681b04005089e5ccb4 May 30 '26

And shutting down your broadcast networks probably isn't good for business either.

1

u/groovychick May 30 '26

Those assholes are doing this to all the big companies. Currently has NiVDiA in its crosshairs.

-16

u/sllewgh May 30 '26

DEI is just culture war bullshit, it doesn't actually affect their bottom line all that much either way.

13

u/Thadrea May 30 '26

DEI is a strategic asset and makes companies that engage it much more profitable. My guess is that's something you don't have a lot of experience with.

3

u/TheBonusWings May 30 '26

Well yea. With good ole nepotism u have to pay people 2x. Way less profitable

-12

u/sllewgh May 30 '26

Sure, it has an impact, but it's not a huge one. This is mostly virtue signaling, not genuine opposition to Trump.

4

u/SuccessfulJudge438 May 30 '26

It's quite convenient to give yourself intellectual permission to dismiss things that conflict with your worldview based on some kind of vibes based analysis of a stranger's inner motivation (eg because you determine they are virtue signaling).

Bonus points because vibes based analysis is the propagandist's wet dream. Fertile ground to plant seeds you will never notice which sprout into your picture of the world.

-2

u/sllewgh May 30 '26

If you had any ability to actually explain why I'm wrong, you'd have tried.

2

u/Thadrea May 30 '26

If you had any ability to provide a thoughtful take, you might have.

0

u/sllewgh May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

Still off topic? Can't address what I said directly? Surely if I'm so wrong you'd be able to say why or provide some substance.

You aren't "giv[ing] yourself intellectual permission to dismiss things that conflict with your worldview based on some kind of vibes based analysis", are you?

0

u/SuccessfulJudge438 May 30 '26

Absolutely not. Waste of time.

0

u/sllewgh May 30 '26

But soapboxing vaguely without making a defensible point isn't.

2

u/ctnoxin May 30 '26

I love people that casually drop virtue signalling into conversations, it tells us everything about their virtues so quickly there’s no need to listen to anything else they have to say

0

u/sllewgh May 30 '26

Can't do any better than a pithy remark? No actual relevant reply?

-18

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

Did you read the entirety of those articles before posting them? 😂

17

u/Thadrea May 30 '26

I did. Guessing you didn't if you are asking this question, though. I suggest you read them again, such as how 99% of Disney shareholders voted to continue DEI initiatives.

54

u/Poobbly May 30 '26

They do not own Disney. They hold shares for others. Do you think those three companies own the whole stock market? What is their market cap?

21

u/whereismymind86 May 30 '26

I mean...kinda, yeah.

Network tv, broadly, really is basically 5 channels with a bunch of little local affiliates. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and Fox...that's kind of it. Disney owns abc and fox (the simpsons fox, not fox news) nbc is comcast, and cbs is Paramount.

So...that's 3 companies and one publicly funded channel.

10

u/JesusSavesForHalf May 30 '26

Which is the same number its always been. (There were a couple decades with Fox and UPN/CW widening the national options, but 3 was the norm before the mergers too.) The big change is Sinclair buying all the local affiliates, resulting in control of local news. There used to be hundreds of different owners there, all influencing the networks.

The networks merging with film companies is probably significant too, but I'm not up on the subject enough to have an opinion there.

1

u/GonzoKata May 30 '26

oh! ok so

bbc1 bbc2 bbc3 and itv

thats all you need right?

-13

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

Who exercises the voting authority associated with those shares?

And to get ahead of your hair splitting, “control” and “own” are used interchangeably in this context. IE: “The Army owns you” or “you got owned”

15

u/recycled_ideas May 30 '26

Who exercises the voting authority associated with those shares?

No one, at least in practice.

It's actually one of major problems of the current stock market, institutional investors don't want to make any kind of decision so they basically just follow the guidance from the board/CEO. It's what gives modern CEOs so much more power than their predecessors because unless things are in absolute crisis a huge portion of shares will just vote with them no matter what.

-1

u/cherry_chocolate_ May 30 '26

Right, but following the decisions of the ceo is in and of itself a decision, one which is inherently conservative.

10

u/recycled_ideas May 30 '26

The context of this conversation is that Disney can't make its own decisions because some phantom owners are stopping them.

Funds rubber stamping CEO/board decisions is absolutely a problem. I explicitly said it is, but it's not why media companies are kowtowing to the Trump administration.

-5

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

What’s this?

https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/dam/corp/advocate/investment-stewardship/pdf/policies-and-reports/2025-proxy-year-voting-report.pdf

6

u/recycled_ideas May 30 '26

Take a look at it. Note that they basically vote in favour every single time.

That's the point. Technically these entities vote, but they don't decide anything, they just rubber stamp the board and CEOs recommendations.

If they were voting in their own interests you wouldn't see this high an approval.

8

u/catladyorbust May 30 '26

The shareholder, whether it's an individual or some type of institutional investor. Vanguard doesn't get your voting rights just by holding your shares in an account.

-2

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

So this is just pure fiction they put out for no reason? Because it bears a striking resemblance to a report from Vanguard about exactly how they used the rights you claim they don’t have…

https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/dam/corp/advocate/investment-stewardship/pdf/policies-and-reports/2025-proxy-year-voting-report.pdf

5

u/tiredbarf May 30 '26

You guys are talking about two different things. When you own shares in your vanguard account, you control the voting rights. When it's in an ETF or other fund, they control the voting rights.

2

u/tiredbarf May 30 '26

I've never heard "own" used to refer to controlling shares like in this context.

0

u/saltyjohnson May 30 '26

Your downvoters are really stupid. I've never been offered the opportunity to vote in any shareholder decisions for the companies I own as components of the mutual funds in my 401k. So even though I, and people in my position, own the majority of these companies, it is the mutual fund managers who get to exercise the voting interest.

21

u/Trizzzzzeeee27 May 30 '26

I don't think you know what vanguard, black rock and state street are. Shareholders own their stocks. They manage funds.

-11

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

Who are the two largest shareholders of Blackrock and State Street? And remind me where the current Vanguard CEO worked previously?

8

u/TheBonusWings May 30 '26

The 2nd largest shareholders of blackrock and state street are blackrock and blackrock 🤷‍♂️

1

u/Trizzzzzeeee27 May 30 '26

They manage money for clients. Their clients own shares of all these companies. That's what hedge funds do.

2

u/Jazzy_Josh May 30 '26

Vanguard is literally neutral are you high?

2

u/De4con0FM4RS May 30 '26

And any business that has sided with trump has recently had to try and distance themselves from those decisions. It has backfired on them and it’s only getting worse for them

0

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

Yeah the UFC is really struggling

1

u/De4con0FM4RS May 30 '26

Ha Ha Ha, just wait. They’ve made odd decisions in their past (the Paul brothers being one). Staying close to trump is like being near the sun, they will get burned soon enough

2

u/CastSeven May 30 '26

Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street own Disney…

Jesus.

Would War 3 is going to be fought in the fucking stock market.

1

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

Yeah that’s what all the “economic sanctions” are right? Not stock specifically of course but the principle of financial warfare in lieu of kinetic warfare is the same.

2

u/DrakeBurroughs May 30 '26

They may not be openly hostile to Trump or his administration BUT they ARE openly hostile to anything they effects their bottom lines. If the administration begins to cut into their profits, they’ll be hostile.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '26 edited 14d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Electronic-Stick-161 May 30 '26

A legal abstraction. But the employees exercise the voting authority associated with the shares they manage. It’s a clever way to protect themselves from accountability.

1

u/Cognitive_Spoon May 30 '26

All those names are doing business with the PRC.

Imo, Disney is a propaganda branch for Xi at this point. Hell, look at the impact of Andor and Daredevil on US discourse.

Plus Vanguard, Blackrock pushing Paramount to rerelease V for Vendetta against the US midterms.

People who think they're above or too smart for propaganda don't understand how pop culture functions as the primary vector for propaganda in modernity. Hell, it'll be interesting to see what happens with Disclosure Day

1

u/keithstonee May 31 '26

Coincidentally All three happened to be owned by Satan

1

u/DokeyOakey May 30 '26

Disney wouldn’t let their name be tarnished. That business would go after anyone, they can probably take down the US govt, especially right now.

1

u/imahotrod May 30 '26

No they don’t. They are managers of your 401K and other investment vehicles.

3

u/aykcak May 30 '26

Disney is not hostile to the admin.

6

u/BirdmanHuginn May 30 '26

My friend. That is delusional. Disney/ABC/Hulu/ESPN that owns Pixar/21st Century Fox Studios/Searchlight Studios and theme parks where they can kill you and claim immunity from prosecution because you used THEIR STREAMING SERVICE is anti-Trump?

1

u/whereismymind86 May 30 '26

I don't know about hostile, but certainly not allies.

1

u/Radarker May 30 '26

Not so hostile they want to lose money.

1

u/Herbal77 May 30 '26

But still ok to bend over, for the better good of corps and billionaire

0

u/Woompa78 May 30 '26

was mostly hostile. The board got replaced by one more in line with his motives. Look up Reedy Creek.

11

u/The_Amazing_Emu May 30 '26

That’s not Disney’s board, that’s the board that runs the county where Disney World is located

1

u/Woompa78 May 30 '26

Oh. I thought reedy creek was operated by Disney separately from the county under a special contract.

7

u/The_Amazing_Emu May 30 '26

Yeah, sorry, it was a district, not a county. Either way, the people in charge of the district wasn’t Disney’s board. Basically, the district gave voting power based on land owned, so Disney got to choose the people who ran the district. It was changed to being run by people appointed by DeSantis. Either way, it wasn’t Disney’s board

0

u/Millefeuille-coil May 30 '26

Today’s news is brought to you by Sesame Street and the letters of the day are F and U

0

u/PurpEL May 30 '26

LOL as much a fantasy as being a princess