This app censors your phone in a stunning new way — and people are using it on purpose



The battle for censorship online has been raging on social media for more than a decade.

Netizens have clamored for unfettered free speech, while their detractors say that some things are better left not said. Somewhere in the middle, though, exists a new app that is going viral for one line: "Jesus is watching you!"

'Half of the songs nowadays have no clean version.'

A post seen by more than 1 million people on X alluded to a Big Brother-style app that monitors the listening habits of music lovers. However, one chat with the app's founder is likely to put that idea to bed.

The app is called Verso, and while on its face it is indeed an app designed to help censor music, the application's stated intent is to fill in the gap of parental control settings on streaming services by acting as an intentional filter between the service and the listener.

Citing that around 92% of today's top streaming songs are explicit, Verso says it wants to put parents and families in control of what they hear.

Co-founder Jonathan Bernal told Blaze News directly that he left his former job with the Google Gemini AI team because he wanted to use his skills to develop technology that supports the family unit, unlike most tech out there.

"Kids hear everything," Verso says in its video. Bernal backs that up.

"Half a billion families are listening to music, and half of the songs nowadays have no clean version," he said. "Parents are constantly reaching for the mute or skip button."

In order ensure a listening experience in which parents don't have to worry about blasting out adult content, the app syncs with music streaming services and filters out profanity or certain themes entirely. The system is akin to a time when content moderation on television could be trusted.

RELATED: Tracking device exposes Amazon's secret plans for rare books

To avoid a one-size-fits-all application, Bernal said it was important for the app to be able to make any song instantly "customizable."

"You can make it family-friendly; you can make any song align with your values," Bernal said.

This comes through the settings, where users can filter out sexual innuendo, profanity, sacrilegious messages, or anything they consider to be unpalatable. All of those options can be applied globally, but the fun part comes in the individual settings.

Any song specifically can be changed, and users are free to customize how the music gets censored. Bernal noted how many videos have gone viral of parents on TikTok using duck sounds for when their kids are in the car.

RELATED: Wi-Fi. Microwaves. Electromagnetism. It's all connected — and so is the damage.

Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto/Getty Images

For clarification, the entrepreneur said yes, the viral image of the app asking users to repent is real.

Bernal said he is a Christian man and hopes to continue the app's success so he can help promote the family unit.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The FCC finally cuts local TV loose



Washington has forced local television stations to compete in a 21st-century media market under rules written for the 20th century.

Americans pay the price whenever outdated regulations make it harder for local broadcasters to invest in better news coverage, stronger emergency alerts, and new technology.

The future of local television should not be determined by regulations written before streaming, smartphones, and digital competition transformed the media landscape.

The Federal Communications Commission has now taken an important step toward fixing that mismatch by replacing a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach with a more flexible, fact-based review process.

The principle is simple: Regulation should respond to today’s marketplace, not yesterday’s assumptions.

Local television still matters. Americans rely on hometown stations for storm warnings, election coverage, school closings, and stories that national outlets rarely cover. Yet, like local newspapers before them, many stations face serious financial pressure.

More than half of U.S. television stations operate at a loss even as they continue providing essential public service.

To survive, broadcasters need investment. They want to upgrade transmission systems, strengthen emergency alerts, expand local journalism, and deploy next-generation broadcast technology.

But investment requires scale, and investors are understandably reluctant to fund companies that federal policy artificially prevents from reaching more than 39% of American households.

That ownership cap was created for a different era, when Americans watched one of three television networks and broadcasters dominated the video marketplace.

The market changed. Washington’s rules did not.

Americans now consume news and entertainment on smartphones, tablets, laptops, streaming services, social media, and podcasts. Broadcasters compete with Netflix, YouTube, TikTok, cable networks, and digital platforms capable of reaching essentially every American.

Local broadcasters, however, remain constrained by a federal ownership cap designed before the internet transformed the media business.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has warned that America should not repeat the mistakes made with local newspapers.

That warning deserves attention.

Washington watched thousands of local newspapers disappear while old business models collapsed and investment arrived too late. Communities never stopped needing local journalism. The economics simply stopped supporting it.

Local television should not be next.

Critics of the FCC’s order warn that loosening ownership restrictions could weaken localism. That is a legitimate concern, but it should be tested against evidence rather than treated as an argument for preserving the status quo indefinitely.

The politics of the moment also matter. Because the reform comes from a Republican FCC, opponents can dismiss it as simple deregulation. Yet media-ownership debates have shifted with partisan control before, and Democrats have supported modernization efforts of their own when they held power.

RELATED: FCC slaps ban on Chinese robots — revealing US plans for unmanned warfighting

John Keeble/Getty Images

Localism should remain the objective. The 39% ownership cap is only one regulatory tool.

There is little evidence that fixing the national ownership limit at 39% — rather than 50%, 75%, or some other figure — produces more local news, stronger emergency coverage, or better community service.

Good public policy should ask whether a regulation produces measurable benefits, not whether it has survived for decades.

If policymakers want stronger local journalism, they should focus on the conditions that make it possible: investment, innovation, modern technology, and financially sustainable business models.

Emergency communications make the point especially clear.

During hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and other disasters, local broadcasters provide information that can save lives. Those capabilities depend on modern infrastructure, skilled journalists, reliable transmission systems, and continuing investment — not on an arbitrary national ownership ceiling.

The FCC’s decision does not guarantee that every station will thrive. Nothing can.

But it gives local broadcasters something they have lacked for too long: greater freedom to attract investment, modernize operations, strengthen emergency communications, and build sustainable local-news organizations.

Government should not freeze one industry in time while every competitor is free to innovate.

The future of local television should not be determined by regulations written before streaming, smartphones, and digital competition transformed the media landscape.

Local communities are best served when their broadcasters have the freedom to grow, compete, and invest in the journalism Americans still depend on.

'Worse than cocaine': Backlash as HBO clips classic shows for scrolling



HBO's exclusive content app is diving headfirst into what viewers are calling a brain-frying form of entertainment.

HBO Max, the network's streaming app, announced on Tuesday that it will roll out a new feature that utilizes its iconic content. Unfortunately for the network, reactions to the news are not just overwhelmingly negative, they've been outright atrocious.

'Tik-Tok and Instagram really fried peoples brains.'

Short cuts

Jumping into the world of TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, HBO Max has decided to implement a short-video feed of its exclusive content, which includes massively popular titles like "The Sopranos," "Entourage," and "Sex and the City."

Subscribers will now be able to doomscroll vertical videos on the app, HBO said in a press release, "customized to individual tastes and preferences based on watch history."

In an X post about the announcement — which was far more popular than HBO's own post — readers quickly piled on the network, calling the change an attempt to pander to those with a short attention span.

"The destruction of humanity’s attention span is a bad thing, actually," John Monaco replied.

"Shows you how much attention span has declined over the years ... I'm really worried about future generations," another man commented.

RELATED: Hollywood's Bleeding

Thomas Fuller/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

Scroll with it

Reactions were harsh, with multiple users calling the feature an attempt to appeal to "retards" and even comparing the feature to cocaine addiction.

"I literally know very few people who have quit short form scrolling style video, reels etc," a California man wrote. "This is a huge problem. And the younger people really don’t know what life was like before it, so that’s also a problem. Its worse that cocaine."

"Tik-Tok and Instagram really fried peoples brains," a movie-related podcast account added.

However, HBO disagrees.

Deepna Devkar, HBO's senior vice president for machine learning, revealed that not only is the company excited about the new feature, its clips are being created using artificial intelligence.

"We're thrilled to launch this application of AI to accelerate the creation of these clips and look forward to quickly expanding to make even more of our amazing content offering discoverable through this new feature," Devkar said in the announcement.

RELATED: OnlyFans models are offended by Sydney Sweeney mocking their degeneracy on her TV show

Malcolm Ali/WireImage

Search me

While some suggested HBO simply "make good shows again," other readers believe the move would be a net negative by getting viewers used to short-form content, theoretically discouraging them from watching the TV series that are available on the app.

HBO Max isn't the only nonsocial platform knee-deep in the scrolling game though. Netflix similarly expanded its own vertical clips feed earlier this year to include shorts from its library as a way to push new and old content.

At the same time, HBO Max announced a second new feature, a "conversational search experience," which helps users find content based on wider search terms, as opposed to having to enter the title of a show or movie.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The NFL’s antitrust exemption is a win for fans



Critics have long argued that the NFL gets an unfair pass under antitrust law. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 allows the league to do things that would normally raise legal red flags, including pooling all 32 teams’ television rights and negotiating media deals as one entity. That kind of coordinated behavior is exactly what the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was designed to scrutinize.

But measured by what matters most under modern antitrust law — consumer welfare — the NFL’s exemption looks far less like a sweetheart deal for billionaires and much more like a good deal for fans.

The irony of stripping the NFL’s exemption in the name of protecting fans is that fans would likely end up worse off.

Antitrust law generally asks a simple question: Does the challenged conduct hurt consumers? By that standard, the NFL’s model holds up well. Fans have more access to games at lower real prices, even as league costs have risen sharply, including large inflation-adjusted gains in player salaries.

Hometown fans can watch every one of their local team’s games free over the air each season. The typical fan can access more than 100 games a year without paying for cable or a streaming bundle. Even the avid fan who wants every regular-season game can, according to research by LightShed Partners, watch all 272 games in 2026 for less than $600.

That comes to less than $3 per game.

Compare that with 2006, when full coverage required paying roughly $60 a month for DirecTV plus $290 for Sunday Ticket. Adjusted for inflation, that is more than $1,600 in today’s dollars. In other words, the real cost of watching the full NFL season has fallen by more than 60% over the past two decades.

That is not what consumer harm usually looks like.

Some critics argue that if the NFL lost its exemption, individual teams would cut their own media deals and fans would benefit from more competition. In practice, that would likely mean 32 teams signing separate deals with different streaming services, regional networks, cable channels, and digital platforms. Fans who wanted to follow the whole season would have to assemble a patchwork of subscriptions, apps, logins, blackout rules, and geographic restrictions.

That would not help fans. It would make watching football more expensive and more frustrating.

European soccer offers a warning. Leagues there have spent years fighting over collective television licensing, and fragmented rights have often made the product harder for ordinary fans to follow while enriching a handful of powerful clubs. The irony of stripping the NFL’s exemption in the name of protecting fans is that fans would likely end up worse off.

The NFL also differs from ordinary industries in a deeper way. In most markets, antitrust law assumes independent competitors produce better outcomes than coordinated actors. A dominant firm may seek to squeeze out rivals, raise prices, and control the market. But professional sports do not work like normal markets.

The NFL’s “product” requires competition among many teams. A single team cannot produce a season. Fans do not merely want great franchises; they want close, unpredictable games. If the same teams win every year and the outcome seems predetermined, people stop watching.

RELATED: Sports broadcasting blackouts are killing American culture

PRANGKUL RUANGSRI/iStock/Getty Images

That is why the NFL needs coordination in a way most industries do not. Revenue sharing, pooled media rights, and coordinated scheduling are not tricks to suppress competition. They help preserve competitive balance. When money flows from richer franchises to smaller-market teams, the league prevents a handful of clubs from dominating year after year.

Few industries operate by having winners subsidize losers. In most markets, that would look suspicious. In professional football, it helps create the product fans want.

Antitrust law usually assumes cooperation among competitors harms consumers. In the NFL, cooperation among competitors helps produce better competition on the field.

The Sports Broadcasting Act is not a dusty relic or a lobbyist favor from another era. It reflects a real difference between sports leagues and ordinary industries. Coordination can benefit consumers when the product itself depends on balanced competition, shared scheduling, broad access, and national distribution.

The data supports that conclusion. Fans are paying less in real terms for more access than ever, despite rising league costs. Blow up the current system in the name of a simplistic demand for “more competition,” and the likely result would be higher prices, fragmented access, and a worse viewing experience.

Antitrust law exists to protect consumers, not to punish cooperation for its own sake. In the NFL’s case, coordination lowers prices and improves the product by giving fans more football, broader access, and closer games. It’s the opposite of what it does in many other industries where antitrust concerns are relevant.

'Crawl': Killer gators make for gruesome guests in overlooked creature feature



There’s nothing wrong with watching “The Silence of the Lambs” again, especially to honor the film’s 35th anniversary. With or without fava beans.

The same holds for other genre classics like “Rosemary’s Baby,” “The Shining,” “The Exorcist” and “Halloween” (1978).

The unrelenting creature brought to life with lo-fi special effects makes this a fine example of 'less is more storytelling.

What about horror films that slipped by our pop-culture radar, settling into streaming obscurity? The following five films got little attention on release. They may have underperformed at the box office or simply debuted on a streamer sans fanfare.

Each is well worth a look — maybe even while uncorking a nice Chianti.

'Crawl' (2019)

If you see just one killer alligator movie this year, make it "Crawl," which Quentin Tarantino dubbed his favorite film of 2019.

Kaya Scodelario stars as a young woman checking in on her Dad (Barry Pepper) during a brutal Florida hurricane. She can’t find him at first, and his home has started to flood. Badly. That brings more than just the threat of black mold insurance claims. Some killer gators have decided to investigate the house, and Scodelario’s character would make a tasty snack.

Yes, it sounds “Sharknado”-adjacent, but the movie's hokey premise is offset by first-rate direction from horror vet Alexandre Aja (“High Tension,” “The Hills Have Eyes” (2006)). The father-daughter dynamic is handled with care, giving gravitas to the story without diminishing the chill factor.

'Hush' (2016)

This Netflix original boasts a can’t-miss gimmick. What if the protagonist in a home invasion movie were deaf and couldn’t hear the intruder breaking into her home? Every step and crash fell on deaf ears. Literally.

Horror maestro Mike Flanagan (“Doctor Sleep,” “The Fall of the House of Usher”) takes it from there, maximizing that plot device for a pulse-pounding affair that skimps on horror’s usual eye-roll moments. Credit star/co-writer Kate Siegel for crafting a credible heroine, one who never falls victim to girlbossery.

Instead, the film finds new ways to explore the central hook while allowing Siegel’s character to flash her survival instincts.

Yes, it has some slasher film DNA, but the thrilling setup makes it far more than a blood-and-guts-a-thon.

RELATED: Killer bear flick 'Backcountry' puts big-budget thrillers to shame

IFC Midnight

'Splinter' (2008)

Shea Whigham is one of Hollywood’s busiest character actors. Think “Joker,” “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning,” “Boardwalk Empire,” and many more projects.

This micro-indie takes advantage of his screen presence, casting him as a crook on the lam with his reluctant gal pal. The duo abduct a couple while fleeing Johnny Law before the four run into an unexpected obstacle: a bizarre, stick-like creature that traps them in a convenience store.

The setting couldn’t be starker, forcing us to focus on the squabbling foursome. That, plus the unrelenting creature brought to life with lo-fi special effects, makes this a fine example of “less is more” storytelling.

The rest is up to Whigham, who proves his crooked character may have a redemptive arc lurking within.

'Haunt' (2019)

“From the writers of ‘A Quiet Place’” wasn’t the marketing draw the film’s studio imagined. Still, Scott Beck and Bryan Woods’ directorial effort delivers a straightforward horror film done just right.

The plot screams Genre Film 101, with a gaggle of attractive young people in search of Halloween high jinks. They stumble upon a haunted house attraction with terrible marketing but a decidedly creepy vibe.

Little do they realize the source of said vibes.

There’s little about “Haunt” that reinvents the horror movie template. It’s the efficient scares, imaginative twists, and capable cast that seal the deal. The film became Shudder’s most-watched movie premiere of 2019.

'Rogue' (2007)

If you see just one killer crocodile film this year, make it this smart Aussie thriller. Director Greg McLean (“Wolf Creek”) leverages his homeland’s stunning vistas and a better-than-expected cast for a slick terrorfest. Radha Mitchell (“Man on Fire”) stars as a tour guide steering vacationers through the country’s Northern Territory. The trouble starts when her jerk of an ex (“Avatar’s” Sam Worthington) interrupts the riverboat tour.

That’s nothing compared to what comes next. A massive croc terrorizes the boat, feasting on vacationers in the process. The serene setting lulls us into a false sense of security, but the creature feature scares prove as nasty as needed. Co-stars Michael Vartan (“Alias”) and a pre-fame Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland”) provide the character beats, allowing us to invest in the dwindling band of survivors.

Don’t get too attached to them, though.

Killer bear flick 'Backcountry' puts big-budget thrillers to shame



Streaming may be a gut punch to the theatrical model, but it lets us catch films we missed the first time around.

The following thrillers made little noise at the U.S. box office. You likely haven’t heard of them, even if you once saw their movie posters fly by while scrolling on Netflix or Tubi. All three are well worth a look. In fact, these indie gems offer thrills that their big-budgeted peers can’t always match.

Cat-and-mouse games never go out of style. Nor do films where a put-upon heroine must do all she can to survive a deranged stalker.

Big-time studios could learn a lesson or two from these indie thrillers.

'Backcountry' (2014)

A couple head into the woods for a romantic camping trip. The problem? The besotted Alex (Jeff Roop) wants to impress Jenn (Missy Peregrym), but his survival skills aren’t up to par. Map? I don’t need a map.

Spoiler alert: He needed a map (and a few cans of bear spray).

The mood sours when the pair stumble upon an Irish hiker (Eric Balfour) who flirts with Jenn and undercuts Alex’s romantic plans. That’s just the appetizer to the main disaster course. The lovers aren’t alone in the woods, and a surly black bear is ready for his close-up.

Small cast. Tiny budget. Big, bold thrills. “Backcountry” takes its time introducing the couple in question, so when the bear makes his first, shocking appearance, the stakes are real. This isn’t a horror film in a traditional sense, but the shocks are expertly framed. And the feature’s makeup team has its work cut out for it.

The running time is a taut 92 minutes, perfect for this kind of no-nonsense thriller. Even better? Roop and Peregrym make a believable couple, credibly tender yet resourceful under duress. And said duress is extreme.

“Backcountry” isn’t for the faint of heart, and it will make audiences think twice before their next outdoor adventure. If you only see one “bear in the woods” movie (after “The Revenant”), this is it.

(Available free, with ads, on the Roku Channel.)

'Beast' (2018)

We all know how talented Jessie Buckley is after her Oscar-winning turn in “Hamnet.” This British sleeper gave the theatrically trained actress her big-screen debut. She plays Moll, a flighty woman at odds with her loving but cold family. Enter Pascal (Johnny Flynn, Lucius Malfoy in the “Harry Potter” reboot), a troubled type who rescues her when a bar hookup takes a dangerous turn.

Romantic sparks fly. So do accusations that Pascal is responsible for the death of a local woman. He’s nothing but doting to Moll, and she falls for his soulful blend of danger and sincerity despite his Samsonite-level baggage.

Is he as guilty as local law enforcement suggests? Can Moll’s family protect her from him? Or is Pascal the man who can save her from herself? She’s no saint, as a critical part of her backstory reminds us.

RELATED: King of comedy: 1988 'Naked Gun' tops list of 100 funniest flicks

Paul Kaye/Bonnie Schiffman/Getty Images

We know what Buckley can do on screen, but Flynn is note-for-note her equal in this smart, patient thriller. This isn’t a bare-knuckled story with car chases and other B-movie tics. It’s a character study that throbs with tension just below the surface. And while many modern films don't stick the landing, the final moments of “Beast” are smart, stark, and satisfying. Buckle in.

(Available free, with ads, on the Roku Channel.)

'Alone' (2020)

Cat-and-mouse games never go out of style. Nor do films where a put-upon heroine must do all she can to survive a deranged stalker.

Jules Willcox stars as Jessica, a woman mourning the death of her husband. She gets into a road-rage altercation with another vehicle. The car’s driver (Marc Menchaca) later tries to apologize for the incident, hoping they can put it behind them. The two part amicably.

He seems friendly enough, but tell that to Jessica’s Spidey-sense, which spikes during the apology chat.

When they meet again, Menchaca’s character reveals his true, cruel intentions. Once again, a tiny cast and modest budget can’t restrain a story that’s all meat and zero filler. There are no girl-power flourishes or eye-rolling escapes here, just blood-and-guts storytelling with actors who prove equal to the material.

Slick. Taut. Smart. Engrossing. And, sadly, overlooked by media outlets during its COVID-19-era release date. Streaming can right that wrong.

(Available via VOD platforms like Prime Video and iTunes.)

It’s Time To Cancel Our Subscription Culture Once And For All

A new cancel culture is coming. Consumerism, bad customer service, and corporations beware!

Netflix wants a monopoly on your mind



Netflix has announced an $80-plus billion plan to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — a move that would give the streaming giant control of some of the biggest entertainment franchises in America. Executives celebrated the deal, promising consumers “more of what they love.” In reality, the merger would create a monopolistic monster. For millions of Americans already frustrated with Netflix’s ideology and influence, this feels like a bridge too far.

This isn’t some routine corporate merger. It is an attempt to build an unstoppable cultural behemoth. Netflix is already the largest streaming platform in the country. Absorbing Warner Bros. — one of Hollywood’s oldest and most important studios — would allow the company to tower over its competitors and control a massive share of American storytelling.

The Netflix-Warner Bros. merger would confer unprecedented cultural and economic authority on a company already mired in national controversy.

Antitrust concerns are obvious and bipartisan. Lawmakers in both parties have called the deal an antitrust “nightmare.” Consumers have already filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that the merger would gut competition. But there is another reason conservatives in particular are sounding the alarm: the cultural power Netflix has accumulated — and how it intends to use it.

The culture-war dimension

In recent years, Netflix has dominated the streaming world and, by extension, much of the debate over ideological influence in entertainment. The company has been at the center of national fights over gender, sexuality, race, and the politicization of children’s programming.

Elon Musk triggered a viral backlash when he urged millions of followers to cancel Netflix, accusing the platform of pushing a “woke agenda” into entertainment and slipping social messaging into children’s content. Musk tapped into a widespread, simmering frustration: the belief that major corporations no longer reflect the values of ordinary American families.

Netflix’s programming choices have not eased those concerns. The company has showcased transgender and nonbinary themes in children’s shows, celebrated DEI ideology internally, and proudly curated LGBTQ+ collections “for families.” Sometimes this yields unintentional comedy — like a new show about a transgender coal miner — but other times, the messaging feels more deliberate and invasive.

Now imagine giving the company control of Warner Bros. The concern isn’t only economic. It’s cultural. A combined Netflix-Warner empire would shape what stories get made, which values get promoted, and what kind of entertainment future generations will inherit.

What happens to theaters, communities, and creators?

Warner Bros. has long been a pillar of American cinema. Local theaters depend on major studios to draw families out of their homes and into shared cultural experiences — some of the last common spaces in American life. Netflix, by contrast, has built its kingdom on isolation: individual screens, algorithmic curation, the slow erosion of communal entertainment.

If Netflix takes control of Warner Bros., expect shorter theatrical windows, more straight-to-streaming releases, and a slow decline in the local theaters that hold American communities together. The result: fewer choices, weaker alternatives, and consumers trapped paying whatever the merged company demands.

Netflix insists this won’t happen. History suggests otherwise.

Creators and workers see what’s coming

Hollywood’s creative class understands the danger. Director James Cameron has warned that the merger would flatten artistic diversity and silence competing voices. Industry unions fear that a single corporation controlling both production and distribution will decide which projects get funded, which careers move forward, and which ideas make it to the screen.

A company with that much power can shape the entire pipeline of culture.

RELATED:Can conservatives reclaim pop culture?

Photo by Danny Martindale/FilmMagic

The government must stop this

Regulators have noticed. President Trump has expressed concern that the combined company would wield too much market power. The Department of Justice and consumer advocates are preparing for an aggressive antitrust review. Critics across the political spectrum warn that prices will rise, competition will collapse, and consumers will lose.

Americans want competition — not cultural empires run by a handful of executives who impose ideological agendas while claiming neutrality. They want storytellers who reflect a diversity of values and views, not corporate gatekeepers who see entertainment primarily as a delivery system for political messaging.

The Netflix-Warner Bros. merger threatens all of this. It would confer unprecedented cultural and economic authority on a company already mired in national controversy.

The Trump administration should block the merger.

Americans are tired of corporations that profit from their attention while ignoring their concerns. Allowing one company to dominate such a massive share of American entertainment would weaken the industry and harm the country.

The government must stop this power grab before the damage becomes irreversible.

Netflix buys Warner Bros. and HBO — here's what it'll control



Netflix announced a massive deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., a company that controls huge entities like HBO and CNN.

Which networks Netflix will control, however, is a bit complicated.

Warner Bros. put itself up for sale last month, and as Blaze News reported, was simultaneously being eyed for acquisition by Amazon.

'Our mission has always been to entertain the world.'

Netflix has seemingly won the battle though, with a cash and stock transaction valued at $27.75 per share for Warner Bros. Discovery, totaling approximately $82.7 billion, which equates to an equity value of $72 billion after debt, according to CNN and Netflix.

The deal is expected to close in Q3 2026, which will give WBD a chance to conclude the separation of its company, which has huge implications in terms of which channels Netflix takes control of.

Split decision

In June 2025, WBD decided to split itself into two companies, WBD Global Networks and WBD Streaming & Studios. The split is expected to take effect in summer 2026, after which Netflix will take over the Streaming & Studios company.

RELATED: Netflix features trans teen kissing scene in kids' cartoon — but it's not the only one

NEW YORK - JUNE 10, 2007: Actor Ray Abruzzo attends an HBO screening of the series finale of 'The Sopranos.' (Photo by Evan Agostini/Getty Images)

This means Netflix will gain Warner Bros Pictures/Television/Games, HBO, streaming service HBO Max, TNT Sports (international), and studio New Line Cinema.

The acquisition also comes with the rights to some of the most highly sought after shows around, such as "Friends," "Game of Thrones," "The Sopranos," "The Big Bang Theory," and those in the DC Comic Universe. As well movies like the "Harry Potter" franchise will move to Netflix.

CNN not included

There were questions as to what it would mean for CNN should WBD be acquired by a different platform, but the news network will fall under WBD Global Networks and not move to Netflix.

The same goes for networks like HGTV, Discovery, TBS, the Cartoon Network, TNT Sports (U.S.), along with the rights to the NHL, NCAA, and Olympics in terms of sports.

RELATED: Elon Musk claims to have canceled Netflix subscription over Charlie Kirk mockery and transgender indoctrination

Photo Illustration by Thomas Fuller/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Shareholder service

Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix said, "Our mission has always been to entertain the world."

He added that the combination of Warner Bros.' library and Netflix's catalogue will "give audiences more of what they love and help define the next century of storytelling."

Greg Peters, the other co-CEO of Netflix, said the acquisition will "accelerate" their business for decides.

"With our global reach and proven business model, we can introduce a broader audience to the worlds they create — giving our members more options, attracting more fans to our best-in-class streaming service, strengthening the entire entertainment industry and creating more value for shareholders."

Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav added that the sale to Netflix will "ensure people everywhere will continue to enjoy the world's most resonant stories for generations to come."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Formula One Title Fight Again Comes Down To Abu Dhabi

Sunday’s race marks not just the culmination of a compelling three-way title fight but the end of an era in Formula One broadcasting.