Chat is this real
Submitted 2 months ago by SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/c695161e-2655-4000-90e1-1e1fe8c2adcd.webp
Comments
zarlin@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Aquila@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Disney allowed to kill your spouse because you watched the mandalorian
TheDeepState@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Not the worse trade off. As long as we aren’t including Season 3.
N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
The dark arts of the mouse are a pathway to legal techniques some consider to be… unnatural.
ngwoo@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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 2 months ago
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.
HoornseBakfiets@feddit.nl 2 months ago
Don’t underestimate grip children have over their overworked parents when Disney+ isn’t playing
zer0squar3d@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Is there any good magnet urls to Disney’s whole collection?
texasspacejoey@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Google this hash info: EF4211584F37CA70A4B1A2E47E7E833C79ABACBA
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Jesus… You’re not wrong. That’s fucking crazy. You’re NOT wrong. Wtf is wrong with my country?
LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 2 months ago
How can a streaming service agreement apply to a restoring in a park?
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Wasn’t even in a park. The restaurant is in a separate mall. No ticket needed.
merc@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
A mall owned and operated by Disney, with Disney branding everywhere, and store names heavily influenced by Disney properties, like “BB Wolf’s Sausage Co.”, and where “Guest Services” is managed by Disney, and the property rules are Disneyworld’s property rules.
frezik@midwest.social 2 months 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.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
This is why those ToS are 71pages long. I don’t think there are many good judges out there anymore, but I hope the one that reviews this case goes absolutely ape-shit on Disney. There is a legal tradition of harsh punishments for criminals in examplar cases to set detterents to future crimes. The same needs to be done to reel in these corporations.
charonn0@startrek.website 2 months ago
It probably won’t.
thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
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 2 months ago
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 2 months 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:
- I didn’t do it.
- Even if I did do it you can’t prove it was me.
- Even if you can prove it was me I wouldn’t be liable.
- 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.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 months ago
No, it isn’t. It’s saying, look, we had nothing to do with this because it was outside of our reasonable control, and even if we were somehow in control of this independent entity, this is the wrong venue because they agreed to this arbitration clause.
Moreover, per another article on NPR, “Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is “immaterial.”” In other words, he agreed to arbitration when he bought the ticket to Disney World, and it was while at the park, at an independent restaurant, that Ms. Tangsuan had a fatal allergic reaction.
Is that arbitration agreement reasonable? Personally, I lean towards no, but that’s mostly because arbitration is almost always in favor of the corporation. If it was truly a neutral process? Then yeah, I’d mostly support it, because it’s pretty easy for a defendant like Disney to bury any single plaintiff. (OTOH, it makes class action suits much harder.) Is it even valid, since it’s the estate that’s suing Disney, rather than her husband, and the estate didn’t exist when the tickets were bought and so couldn’t have agreed to the terms? Hard to say.
person420@lemmynsfw.com 2 months ago
The problem is just going to court and saying “we have nothing to do with it” is both expensive and can end up with them going to trial. If they believe they have nothing to do with the incident, this is their easiest route.
Not trying to defend a big corp like Disney (they have plenty of money and can easily cover it), but I was just involved in a suite brought against me and in the end even though it would have been an “easy win” for us, it still would have cost us more money to fight it out in court than it was to just settle. And that’s assuming the trial went our way which is never a guarantee.
lugal@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Tbf: he renewed this agreement when buying tickets which doesn’t really make it better but still
Krauerking@lemy.lol 2 months ago
No. That doesn’t make sense either. That was for the park this is their restaurant at their mall off site.
lugal@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Still it’s more recent and I said myself that it doesn’t make it better
Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
The restaurant was not in a ticketed park, so the ticket purchase is as related to this as the Disney+ trial.
lugal@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
My only point was that it’s more recent than years ago. And I agree that it doesn’t change anything
Cosmonaut_Collin@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Disney Springs doesn’t have tickets. It’s just a glorified shopping mall.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Contracts can’t really shield from that kind of negligence either though. You can’t have someone sign a contract indemnifying you from everything and then have no culpability when you literally poison them.
I get that servers have to deal with selective gluten allergies but nut and dairy allergies are not that. They are deadly and the server/kitchen should have absolutely refused to serve any food they couldn’t separate. This is basic knowledge in the food industry too, something they should have known and been trained on.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Ah yes super fair. Let’s put an iPad in his casket so he can watch all his favorite shows in the grave.
cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 2 months ago
It would cost Disney literally pocket changes 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 2 months ago
Not to mention how abhorrent it makes the “family” company look.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It also sends a message that if you ever use a Disney product then they’ll use that as an excuse to deny you your legal rights.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Did you mean “pocket changes” like “yay new pockets” or “pocket change” like “a little money”?
Contentedness@lemmy.nz 2 months ago
You’re getting downvotes, but I for one applaud your manic pedantry!
PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 2 months ago
You probably think you’re clever but being pedantic is just being an insufferable twat about stuff everyone else understood from context. That doesn’t make you clever, that just shows everyone that you need to be seen as clever, which is sad.
Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
They’re using this chance since they know they can easily dispute it to try and set precedent for terms and services being used in situations that don’t make sense.
The judge will probably slap it down and they can still say that they don’t have anything to do with the restaurant and just walk away free, but it’s worth trying cause there’s plenty pro corpo judges now a days.
danekrae@lemmy.world 2 months ago
As a person who owns Disney stocks, I would just like to say:
Pay up, bitches!
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Have you considered stopping?
danekrae@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Or shorting it, when I expect it to go down in price, thereby getting more money out of them.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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 thee theme parks lol.
www.usatoday.com/story/travel/…/71995807007/?fbcl…
I can’t believe this is even a fucking thing
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 months ago
There’s no way this gets dismissed, right? The precedent this would set would be unimaginable…
LANIK2000@lemmy.world 2 months 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!
Shelbyeileen@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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.
Contentedness@lemmy.nz 2 months ago
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 2 months ago
Yknow what else sucks? Dying.
Also I wonder if the staff could be charged with involuntary manslaughter
PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Lets focus our contempt in the correct direction. You have no idea if the wait staff even interacts with the kitchen let alone if they were trained properly, or trained wrong.
Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Dunno how it is there but where I live you can’t be charged for a legitimate fuck up at work like that. Only if it was malicious
Sway_Chameleon@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
orcrist@lemm.ee 2 months ago
It’s particularly entertaining because he’s dead, so whatever agreement he made doesn’t stop her from filing a suit. In other words, this is not a situation where someone who’s currently alive had agreed to something in a click-through many years ago and is now suing.
One of the other interesting points of contract law that I think Disney will quickly lose is the fact that the agreement years ago was between two parties for something that happened years ago. They will have difficulty successfully arguing that what looked like a small scale deal that has long since ended actually had potential negative ramifications but only for one party, for the rest of their lives. If Disney were still giving him benefits up to his death, I think that could potentially be a different situation.
And as usual, depending on the level of negligence on Disney’s end, it doesn’t matter what he agreed to.
tektite@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
In other words, this is not a situation where someone who’s currently alive had agreed to something in a click-through many years ago and is now suing.
The wife was the doctor who died. The husband is who is suing and also who signed up for the D+ trial so yes it is but on behalf of someone who cannot sue as she is dead.
DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The happiest place on earth, y’all!
chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
damn imperialist rat
archomrade@midwest.social 2 months ago
I can’t believe nobody has mentioned the fact that it looks like Mickey is pissing over the disney logo in this image
Xephonian@retrolemmy.com 2 months ago
There are plenty of reasons to hate Disney. If you’re still paying for their content at this point, you are part of the problem.
Mubelotix@jlai.lu 2 months ago
If they won this case, I volonteer to blow up one of their buildings at night
SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
I’m Spartacus
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Why wait to see if they win?
Mubelotix@jlai.lu 2 months ago
Overwrite1@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Disney probably doesn’t care if this argument holds in a court of law. If it does, jackpot. Their main objective is to wear down the plaintiff financially or mentally so that they drop the case.
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Onion? No? Christ…
lulztard@feddit.org 2 months ago
Just 'murica.
gorgori@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
kratoz29@lemm.ee 2 months ago
The importance of piracy right here friends…
Seriously I hope this situation goes in favor of the widow.
absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 2 months ago
*widower
LastJudgement@lemmy.world 2 months ago
[deleted]Quill7513@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
TIL linguistic memes aren’t allowed here
LastJudgement@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Can’t wait for posts that’ll ask their “skibidi rizzlers” if the screenshot is “gyatt” or part of the “fanum tax”, frfr
conditional_soup@lemm.ee 2 months ago
I feel like you might be out of the loop here. I want to help. “Chat, [statement or rhetorical question]” has become a meme slang, like millennials calling dogs anything but dogs (pupper, good boi, heckin floof, etc). It comes from Twitch, AFAICT, where streamers use this unironically (and ironically) to interact with their chat.
chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
My name starts with Chat (real name too, but pronounced with Sh instead of a ch) and Chat/Chati are my nicknames. I know how Karens feel when memes use their names…
So Karens need to stop fucking whining, it ain’t that bad and some of us have been hearing people equate our name to shit since middle school and just chuckle.
LastJudgement@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I’m not, it’s twitch streamer lingo, I know. Asking this how OP did, in a post, like people posting here are OP’s parasocial fans, is just immensely disrespectful. Why not just ask “Is this real?”
4oreman@lemy.lol 2 months ago
Imagine if he had actually purchased it.
imaginepayingforred@lemm.ee 2 months ago
I only want to know how this ends
letme_meowmeow@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
yeah, that work like a trap.
Sign up for one service with arbitrate … that would apply for all service.
amanda@aggregatet.org 2 months ago
I’m kind of worried about Celebration, Florida now. It always seemed too much of a Stepford Wives type situation but now it’s just ridiculous.
Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why the fuck am I paying for Disney plus?
eskimofry@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Arbitration clauses must be made illegal
leisesprecher@feddit.org 2 months ago
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.
radiohead37@lemmynsfw.com 2 months ago
Arbitration is never the right answer. Fix the judicial system, don’t privatize it.
Urist@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Demonstrably false. In a public healthcare system it is also possible to have publicly funded patient injury compensation systems. Source: Live in Norway and we have both.
Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why would it be rasonable? Did the tatoo artist do what is (keyword:) reasonable on their end to ensure that doesn’t happen? Did they make information about tatoo ink allergies known to their customers? Do they advise their customers about the allergies? Do they use FDA approved tatoo inks?
Did the streaming service clearly for example cause magnetic interference and was ruled as a large contributor to the disaster? If yes, then it’s reasonable.
Whatever scenatio you think of, there’s always room for liability. Some, nay, mlst of it’s far-fetched, but not impossible.
However there’s at least one thing that’s never reasonable, and that’s arbitration itself. Arbitration is someone making a decition which can’t be amended after it’s made. It can’t be appealed. New evidence coming to light after-the-fact means nothing. Arvbitration is absolute.
Arbitration doesn’t allow complaint. The judgement is final.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Let’s return to your two claims of unreasonability:
There’s nothing stopping a normal court from fairly making a judgement. It can be appealed, which is fine.
What isn’t fine is giving a company, or a like-minded court sole and absolute jurisdictions over suits against a company by its users. And above that, making said judgements unappealable.
To paraphrase you: there has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying facts of the case covered. Some claims are clearly ubsubstantiated. Some, however, are clearly substantiated and if the service provider knows and understands that, they would accept the jurisdiction of the court system without carveouts grossly in their favour.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
My country has heavy immunity for doctors. I think we can’t sue them, like it’s automatically a regional arbitration hearing, and at no point can one get “pain and suffering” but only “recoup of costs to fix as much as possible” kind of stuff.
So if the doc removes the wrong foot, he’ll lose his job, and you’ll get a pegleg or something like that.
Hmm. Just reading that makes me think the rate of vindictive doctor slayings is too low for that to be true.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
I would like to see whether and how a case of Negligence should work with the boilerplate arbitration clauses that they’re abusing.
Would Disney then roll over and sue the everliving out of the server as a scapegoat?
merc@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
You need to reform lawsuits at the same time. The US legal system allows lawyers to take cases on contingency, getting paid only if they win. In most other countries this isn’t allowed. In addition, in most other countries it’s much easier for the winner of the lawsuit to recover the legal costs of the lawsuit from the loser.
The result of this is that the US has a lot more nuisance and extremely speculative lawsuits. Under those conditions, a binding arbitration setup is more reasonable. It means that neither side is spending tons of money on lawyers. If you reform the legal system so that only people who stand a decent chance of winning are willing to sue, then definitely get rid of binding arbitration.