It’s not even if you watch something. Even if you get Disney+ in a combo package and you don’t even watch one thing, arbitration. Crooked corpo
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
834 points (100.0% liked)
196
16542 readers
2011 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Consumer protections are a joke
Absolutely not in my country
Dear valued customer,
in order to ensure a continuing enjoyable experience for all our customers, a death squad had been dispatched to your house. Please direct all complaints to the arbitration department.
Kind regards, Disney Corporation
I dont know, I've watched all of Mando and I don't have Disney+ or a wife, and will never have either. i prefer living in the double sin or torrenting and having a parter I'm not married to
Maybe Pedro will come kick my ass but I'm okay with that.
My wife and I don't have Disney+ either. We watched the first season of mando and were like....ehhh, let's rewatch Star Trek.
He’s going to come watch Mandalorian with you.
"Daddy is a state of mind"
Just pirate it that way you agreed to nothing.
Commercial TOS contracts that forfeit your rights risk that forfeiture extending beyond the constraints ofmthe contract.
Which is a great reason to avoid terms of service at all,
Which is a great reason to pirate.
It reminds me of Google's war against adblocking, which fails to acknowledge ads are a vector for spyware and malware.
Who doesn't take a free trial? They got me, it's over. No amount of pirating can save me now.
Sure, this would never hold up in court in my country, but I also could not afford to go to court against fucking Disney.
So this works for any corporation? If you are a member/subscriber/user the corp can fuck up your shit and then use an unrelated legal clause from a different contract to prevent legal ramifications?
Did Disney see Cyberpunk and think that corporate dystopia is the right fit for their business? Is Disney suggesting that it's okay for Netflix to shoot password sharers but not the people using the service without subscription? Does using an iPhone give up my life to Apple? This shit was literally a joke 10 years ago and now Disney is trying to pull this shit in real life. Unbelievable.
This is a great case for the DOJ to look at Disney the way they did Google just now, and evaluate whether Disney should be broken up. I have no confidence that that will actually happen.
Did Disney see Cyberpunk and think that corporate dystopia is the right fit for their business?
While they didn't actively decide, it is their end goal. It's just the natural outcome of capitalism, where an infinite increase of profits and getting a monopoly is the desired state for every corporation. It's the intended function of our system.
In order to protect us and our planet we need to abolish capitalism in all its forms.
Not really. The TOS is a collection of legal garbage that they're going to use to argue in court. You can't sign away your basic rights by agreeing to the TOS since the clause in the TOS would be illegal.
Doesn't stop Disney from trying of course
I'd say this is a clear case of EULA roofing.
hey freelancers, just for a laugh sneak a binding arbitration clause into your next contract and kill your boss's wife
Is that a robot in the image?
Yeonmi Park? I suppose it'd explain a lot if she were.
Park runs the YouTube channel "Voice of North Korea by Yeonmi Park",[16] which as of July 2023 has over one million subscribers.[3] Her political views have been called "American conservative",[3] and she has criticized the concepts of political correctness and woke culture in the U.S.,[3] drawing parallels between political correctness in the U.S. and North Korea.
Certainly interesting life path...
Funny, since the conservative overlord Donald Trump seems to love Kim Jong Un...
Kim threatens world with nukes and fires a few missiles into the sea.
Trump and Kim have a summit to ease the tensions.
Kim looks good in DKR because the imperialists have come to beg him not to kill everyone. Trump looks good in America because he got the dictator to back down. They both look good internationally for their positive talks, this means some sanctions can be lifted and more aid can enter DKR.
Both did nothing and both got to benefit from acting like it wasn't a manufactured crisis with a manufactured solution.
Note that firing a few missiles into the sea, and some (semi-)successful tests does not indicate the capacity to actually hit targets, like say, the continent of North America.
The USSR was never very good at hitting its targets with ICBMs, so they would barrage targets with multiple redundant warheads. They needed twenty missiles to hit a target to our one, a situation that General Electric manipulated to fuel the escalation war between US and USSR in the 1980s. (Reagan was into it, and believed he was going to play a part in God's Armageddon by launching a retaliatory strike.)
US Polaris missiles are accurate enough to hit a phone booth. It'd be expensive but we could deliver Kim Jong-Un a pizza by Polaris if we really wanted to send a message. (We'd have to find a save place for the ICBM fuselage to drop, and we'd scare the snot out of NATO.)
Because we've been kicking the can into the future for so long, regarding dealing with the North Korea problem (which means also an ugly meeting with China), it may be useful to US politicians to allow the fiction that DPRK could attack us if they wanted to, despite how it would not go well for them, even if we responded only with conventional weapons, because yes, it allows Trump (or whoever is in office) to save the US from alleged calamity.
That all said, Trump really liked correspondence with Kim Jong-Un and so by a few letters of flattery Kim was able to secure foreign aid from the US for a while without having to resort to threats of causing disaster. Still, I remember Trump's fire and fury speech, which made it looking like the US had elected a pro-wrestler to president... I guess we actually did that.
North Korea is good unless it's bad. Duh
Strictly speaking, I think Disney is arguing that the case must go through private arbitration first, not that the matter should be dropped entirely. They're still scumbags. I'm never signing up to Disney plus (or anything else Disney if I can help it) now.
From the article:
"Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”
I don't have anything to defend or oppose that argument, but if it's true, why would disney have to be a part of the lawsuit at all? Isn't it then just a terrible preemptive move to refer to terms of the Disney+ membership?
I'm going to write some new TOS this weekend for myself and the universe.
OK nevermind that is how people start writing a manifesto and i've got too much laundry and pickleball to start that bullshit.
that's a quality meme. sad and infuriating news though.