You must log in or # to comment.
Fucking psychopaths.
Hey now.
You don’t know if you’ve signed away your right to criticize Disney!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
$ = speech
What. The. Fuck.
Terms. Of. Service.
Disney steals Onion headline from future for legal argument
I’d be really curious to hear if the court accepts Disney’s argument. (F*** them if they do)
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.
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+.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Fuck off
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.
