244
submitted 2 months ago by shish_mish@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 46 points 2 months ago
[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Hey now.

You don't know if you've signed away your right to criticize Disney!

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Disney is a business, the law is expected to prevent them from behaving like psychopaths. Because (almost) every company will when there is enough money on the line.

The real problem here is that law makers don't prevent these nefarious contracts, where people sign away basic rights. These contracts are illegal and void in most countries that have better laws/regulation.

[-] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 months ago

That makes my observation no less true.

Much is periodically made of public mental health issues, most often depression. But far and away the most significant mental health issue humanity faces, and quite likely the most significant issue, period, is psychopaths in positions of power.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

That makes my observation no less true.

This is true, Disney is a company, and the way our system is set up, their job is to make as much money as possible.
To do that, companies often behave like psychopaths. They care more about money than people and morality.

I was only mentioning it because to improve conditions we need to blame lawmakers as much as Disney for allowing this.

[-] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

Oh yeah - I get your point, and agree as far as that goes.

I just think that a system that has to actually have laws in place to limit the abuses carried out by psychopaths in positions of power is self-evidently a failure. A society should have standards in place that either prevent psychopaths from gaining power or strip them of their power should they gain it.

The world as a whole is not insane. Insanity is concentrated among those in positions of power. And we ignore it. We spend so much time and energy arguning back and forth about policy and ideology, and treating things as givens so all we can do is choose the next step in a series of events, when the reality is that the entire situation exists solely because the people with decision-making authority have led us to this situation, and that because they're deeply mentally ill.

I think we should be calling out the mental illness - putting the spotlight on that.

So, for instance, any executive who would sign off on Disney trying to dodge responsibility for a death their negligence obviously caused is self-evidently mentally ill. It can only be the case that they have a lack of empathy, compassion and remorse that is pathological and therefore shouldn't even be allowed to hold a position of public responsibility.

That's the way I see it. It just makes no sense at all, as a society, to allow people who are demonstrably willing to act in ways that cause suffering to have access to power over others. They should be removed from influential positions, and potentially removed from society as a whole, and should be under the care of mental health professionals rather than running loose, warping society to accommodate their own mental illness.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

prevent psychopaths from gaining power or strip them of their power should they gain it.

That would be nice, but I doubt it's possible. Most psychopaths actually stay within the rules though, because they figure out it's best for them socially.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago
[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 36 points 2 months ago
[-] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 32 points 2 months ago

Disney steals Onion headline from future for legal argument

[-] perishthethought@lemm.ee 14 points 2 months ago

I'd be really curious to hear if the court accepts Disney's argument. (F*** them if they do)

[-] timewarp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

It's Florida so it wouldn't surprise me. However there are multiple ways it which it shouldn't. Did Disney have unequal bargaining, was there consideration and acceptance, is it against the public interest and public policy, does the arbitration clause create undue burden... All these things should be against Disney. But... The Supreme Court even when it didn't lean Republicunt has been pro-arbitration and anti consumer.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

None of that should even matter.

Disney is claiming the one line in the terms and conditions of a free trial of Disney+ years ago means the consumer must abide by those terms in perpetuity for anything Disney related. Even things completely unrelated to Disney+.

[-] timewarp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yes a lot of conservative higher courts and Supreme Court have determined that arbitration agreements don't expire and last for eternity. Read various court cases on them. It is truly sick that the higher courts have ruled this way. It shouldn't matter but in many cases it does matter.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

My point is the agreement was for an entirely unrelated product. A restaurant is in no way associated with the Disney+ streaming service. No one would expect the terms and conditions from a streaming service to apply to a sit down restaurant.

I'd even say that while they're both under the Disney brand, they almost certainly are separate companies, further differentiating their products.

[-] timewarp@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

I know and agree. What I'm saying is that the courts and especially conservative justices don't care. Should Disney be sanctioned for this bad faith attempt? Absolutely! But will Disney be? Probably not. Is it possible Disney's motion to compel or dismiss will be granted. It is definitely possible.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Goddamn that's fucking cold. Regardless of the merits of the lawsuit, lawyers having the balls and lack of humanity to use a video streaming service terms of service to try dismissing an in-person accident at a restaurant is just wild.

[-] timewarp@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Corporate defense attorneys are the worst people imaginable. If their CEO raped a 9 year old they'd be saying she asked for it. That is how despicable they are.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In civilized countries that kind of contracts are illegal.
USA is not a country of law, if such contracts can stand. Here it would void everything that contract gives Disney. EVERYTHING!
In America, cooperations are allowed to twist the law and turn everything on its head, and there are no repercussions!

In a country where law matters, you can't sign away basic rights, if this is generally allowed, you can by the same method create a system where de facto slavery exist.

[-] Nomad@infosec.pub 0 points 2 months ago

IANAL, IANAA (not American). I would wager this argument won't work due to subdivisions of the Disney corporation into a lot of sub corporations. The terms of service and any other contract are usually between the consumer and the relevant sub corporate entity. This is usually what protects the parent corporation from one arm of the business spreading it's risk to the rest of the corporate body. In this case, arguments reaching across that would risk spreading throughout the company.... Weird that they would risk it.

this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
244 points (98.4% liked)

News

23267 readers
3053 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS