this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
1524 points (98.2% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9509 readers
546 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 308 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Arbitration clauses must be made illegal

[–] leisesprecher 64 points 4 weeks ago (12 children)

Or at least reasonable.

It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.

It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.

There has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying risks that are covered. Some things are just inherently risky, and if the buyer knows and understands that, she can agree on taking that risk. Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ngwoo@lemmy.world 189 points 4 weeks ago (6 children)

Make sure to pirate all Disney media instead of consuming it legally so that you can sue them if they try to kill you.

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 31 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

That’s what I don’t get about this. The point is either to get out of paying or at least make it very difficult. At the same time the cost to Disney as a company with all the bad press and fall out from doing this would be orders of magnitude greater than simply paying the widower compensation. Who signed off on it? The idea that a lawyer can do what ever it takes to win a case while simultaneously destroying the company they work for seems dumb as shit from a purely financial point of view.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] zarlin@lemmy.world 151 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Aquila@sh.itjust.works 73 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Disney allowed to kill your spouse because you watched the mandalorian

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 4 weeks ago

The dark arts of the mouse are a pathway to legal techniques some consider to be… unnatural.

[–] KingBoo@lemmy.world 107 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

People don't realize how important the outcome of this court case will be.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 40 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Man, america is wild place. Do you have any laws there?

[–] Openopenopenopen@lemmy.world 45 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Our laws protect what’s important to lawmakers, the giant corporations and billionaires.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Qwaffle_waffle@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jinarched@lemm.ee 90 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Piracy is the safe option then. Got it.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm 26 points 3 weeks ago

All it takes is one free trial. They got me, it's over.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 86 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (4 children)

How can a streaming service agreement apply to a restaurant ~~in a park~~?

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 44 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Wasn't even in a park. The restaurant is in a separate mall. No ticket needed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 29 points 4 weeks ago

FWIW, I don't think the judge is going to go for it. Disney's lawyers are the most bloodthirsty son of a bitch lawyers on Earth, but just because they make the argument doesn't mean the court will accept it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 80 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Disney said late Wednesday that it is “deeply saddened” by the family’s loss but stressed the Irish pub is neither owned nor operated by the company. The company’s stance in the litigation doesn’t affect the plaintiff’s claims against the eatery, it added.

“We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,” the company wrote in an emailed statement.

For some reason that word "merely" just gets right under my skin. Like they KNOW it's peak slimy, but they are just trying to do their job, man.

...Which is to protect the company at the expense of anything else: Reason, decency, consumer rights...

[–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 31 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Honestly, isn't them invoking the arbitration clause a direct admission of guilt? Had they just came to court and said "we have nothing to do with it" they might've just gotten away with it. Like this, they literally drag themselves into the suit and say you can't sue me. Not a good look.

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 22 points 4 weeks ago

The way these big firms work is they make a bunch of almost contradictory arguments and you have to show they're all false in order to win the law suit.

So it'll look like:

  1. I didn't do it.
  2. Even if I did do it you can't prove it was me.
  3. Even if you can prove it was me I wouldn't be liable.
  4. Even if I was liable this has to be settled by arbitration.

So you have to get through arguments 4 and 3 first, to show that it's worth the court trying to find out what happened. Then they'll fight you tooth and nail on points 1 and 2 later.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 65 points 3 weeks ago

I sincerely hope this shit blows up. May corporations providing "free" services forever be associated with literal devil's contacts. Piracy is no longer just about sticking it to the man, it's about freedom!

[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 54 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (10 children)

It would cost Disney literally pocket change to compensate the widower, but instead they rather spend hundred of thousands of dollars for lawyers and legal fee to fight it.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 34 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Not to mention how abhorrent it makes the "family" company look.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 52 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Meanwhile, even though D+ wants to apply their TOS to the theme parks, if you buy a D+ gift card, those funds cannot be used at any of the theme parks lol.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/theme-parks/2023/12/20/disney-plus-gift-card-accident/71995807007/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3X1rH7JlfCdnTUyz73bhi5SLAEpTyc0vpA-zpL64nbOD9Ri9t7952jcDo_aem_K3wbukZX1gCnJQzBb3Biuw

I can't believe this is even a fucking thing

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] asexualchangeling@lemmy.ml 50 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

Now that Google is officially an Illigal monopoly, can Disney be next?

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Verdorrterpunkt 47 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (8 children)

How the fuck is it not punishable to write stuff into those contracts that contradict the law (obv. i mean this past a certain company size). Like for real.

Edit: Typo

[–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 30 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I don't know what the exact agreement here is, but such things are very often not enforceable. You can't have someone sign their rights away. You can have them sign the document, but that document will be worthless in court and will not be respected. Those are more to scare people and discourage them from suing the company.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Shelbyeileen@lemmy.world 44 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I really hope a politician bans those "Class Action Waiver" and "Revoking Right to Arbitration" riders that are getting put into everyone's Term and Conditions contracts. We should have the right to band together if a corporation fucks us over and this is ridiculous.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Now THAT is bad PR. Wow. Going to be hard to top it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 38 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

As a person who owns Disney stocks, I would just like to say:

Pay up, bitches!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Contentedness@lemmy.nz 38 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I know this isn't the point at all, but it must suck to be the chef in charge of that kitchen right now. Like you've already made a mistake that's killed a doctor and now it's become massive international news...Yikes!

[–] SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Yknow what else sucks? Dying.

Also I wonder if the staff could be charged with involuntary manslaughter

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world 37 points 3 weeks ago

I sure hope they not only lose, but get further punitive damages for even trying to pull this shit.

[–] gorgori@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago

Right to Sue is a right. Arbitration clause is a contractual obligations.

They should be able to sue regardless of being contractually obliged to seek arbitration. Disney can sue them for violating the terms of the contract later, but nothing should hinder anyone's right to seek justice.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 35 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 33 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (5 children)

Tbf: he renewed this agreement when buying tickets which doesn't really make it better but still

Edit: since I got some downvotes and comments, I'm not saying they are in the right, all I'm relativizing is the "years earlier" at the end. The contract was renewed recently, still it totally doesn't cover this kind of situation.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 56 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

No. That doesn't make sense either. That was for the park this is their restaurant at their mall off site.

Edit: the tickets they didn't survive long enough to actually use either.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The restaurant was not in a ticketed park, so the ticket purchase is as related to this as the Disney+ trial.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] John_CalebBradberton@lemmy.world 31 points 3 weeks ago

This feels so illegal. If it isn't, it should be. Fuck Disney for this.

[–] Chev@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Dependig on the country you live in, there might be some law above what Disney might say. For example in most European Countries it's the case. And no matter what Disney writes, like "killing you is alright". There is a law above it that overrules it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This could go either way and be an amazing consumer victory, or essentially the end of the right to sue over anything, ever.

Though what will really happen if it looks like Disney might lose, is Disney will pay off the widower to drop the suit and prevent a precedent.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sway_Chameleon@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago

Even more ridiculous is that according to this article the agreement even extends to the free trials, even if they don't extend past the trial period.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 21 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

If they win this case, I volunteer to blow up one of their buildings at night

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I know Disney is as cliché as an evil megacorp gets, but I'm going to need a source for this before I start believing in just any absurd sounding tale.

load more comments
view more: next ›