• Whirling_Ashandarei@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    I just watched this show for the first time while tripping with some friends… It’s so fuckin good we finished the entire season lol

  • Media Sensationalism@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media, especially in what would be a critical period for Disney to invest in damage control for their public image, makes it difficult to confidently believe one thing or the other in light of that finding.

    I never cared much for Disney to begin with, so I won’t waste any more time with verification. Regardless, the suit definitely shouldn’t be dismissed on their argument of the arbitration agreement alone because it would set an awful precedent, even if the suit itself happens to be toothless. I wouldn’t put it past Disney to try to take advantage of the situation to that end (They may be hoping the suit will be dismissed for arbitration because the judge already knows the suit is pointless so that future legitimate lawsuits against them for wrongful deaths in their park can be more easily dismissed on the same grounds).

    • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media

      He is suing both Disney and the pub. The pub obviously because they were negligent and Disney because it is in Disney World. It is up to the court to decide how much liability Disney should have vs. the pub, if any.

      I doubt Disney would be able to successfully argue that just because the restaurant is leasing space in Disney World that they have zero liability but that’s up to the court.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        He is suing both Disney and the pub. The pub obviously because they were negligent and Disney because it is in Disney World. It is up to the court to decide how much liability Disney should have vs. the pub, if any.

        It could very well be in the contract with the pub that Disney requires allergenic options to be available and the space doesn’t have sufficient space to keep those ingredients separate. In such an instance Disney absolutely bare a significant amount of responsibility.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      0·
      3 months ago

      I just don’t get why Disney would go to that extent when the lawsuit should have easily been disregarded as not applicable to them. Digging up an old Disney+ membership to find some terms which could apply seems like a terrible PR move for their service.

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          Disneyland is the new unregulated MAGA hellscape. I’m opening an unlicensed gun shop on their Main Street next to the corn dog shop, so no one can ever sue me.

      • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
        0·
        3 months ago

        Just want to point out that the allergic person seemed to have taken every precautions possible to avoid this. She asked the waiter and the chef multiple times to verify that the allergen wouldn’t be there and they repeatedly said it was the case.

        I think there were 4 times where they confirmed that the meal was safe. It wasn’t at all.

        So it looked like a really really bad mistake from the restaurant staff.

    • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      this is why you pirate, so it’s still illegal for them to literally murder your wife.

      satire is fucking dead. NEVER consume media legally. not if you have anyone you care about in your life. I wish this was a fucking joke,

      • Zacryon@feddit.org
        0·
        3 months ago

        NEVER consume media legally

        Given our current economic system and supposing that you can’t change it for now, how would you support a living for media creators (movies, shows, games, art, music, whatever)?

        Genuine question. I find myself on the fence about this. Currently, I consume media legally due to several reasons:

        • Supporting the creators and thereby incentivising them to produce more of stuff which I enjoyed.
        • I can afford it.
        • I would like to keep it legal.

        Stuff like this (although not affected since I don’t live in a country with that shitty laws), but also the decline of quality products as a result of companies trying to maximize their profit margins by producing a lot of cheap trash, as well as the criminalization of consumers and the fact that the profits are not shared equally among the creators but rather a few get the most while the rest gets some pennies (an issue present in virtually every business), make me really favour the idea of getting a pirate hat.

        However:
        If everyone would do this, this would lead to the death of the media industry, since no one would be able to pay for the productions and everyone involved anymore.
        How would get those productions then?

        Really, I think the only way to change this is to impose much better laws on the one hand and switch to a different, better, economic system on the other hand. But I don’t see these things coming soon. Which leaves me with staying legal.

        I would like to read your thoughts on that. (And those of everyone else who wants to chime in.)

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          3 months ago

          The media industry, like several other industries in America, is never going to shed its yoke unless it is destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up. It’s the unfortunate truth. The destruction of the media giants would be very bad for individual creators in the short term and potentially the only way to actually regain control of their industry in the long term.

          I say, let 'em burn. You can’t stop humans from making art, but we can stop working for Disney’s bottom line. But that’s easy for me to say as someone who doesn’t make their living from that.

        • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          so, media creators-the writers actors set designers camera people etc, they don’t get money for media. it’s just not a thing. the money you spend on a movie does not go to the people who made it. sometimes books. sometimes book money goes to the people who wrote them, but that’s still pretty rare. like, as long as the most recent contract negotiations with WGA and SAG went on for, their leadership accepted deals that absolutely fuck them.

          so I dunno how to help them make a living. I guess the same way I would if I were paying disney; live in hollywood and tip 50%.

          I can afford it

          so you can afford to have disney fucking murder your loved ones? dude, that’s a level of non-material wealth that I literally cannot comprehend, im fucking jealous.

          you don’t discipline power with laws. has never worked, will never work. you discipline power with pitchforks and torches and communism. you discipline power with a guillotine, or in a coal mine. nothing else has ever worked.

  • JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    Same’s true if you sell something on Etsy

    The 0FTC has really gotten off their ass this year and I hope they take action against this arbitration clause bullshit because it needs to be illegal. Considering this is the second time this week I’ve heard about a cooperation doing this I can only assume it’s more common than we think. No fucking way a company should just be able to say “You can’t sue us if we violate your rights.”

    • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      doing a hell of a lot worse than suing them needs to be normalized.

      not just agents and property of corporations who piss you off, but their executives, and any corporate lawyer or judge.

    • Shelbyeileen@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      I’ve been opting out of every single one, but some companies are assholes and make you send it in through a written letter (Meta) or worse, automatically accept it if you’ve even just used the app/site/product after they send an email to you regarding changes. The fact that massive corporations also say all matters must be resolved in small claims court and with mandatory arbitration with the company’s arbitrator is incredibly illegal sounding. Fuck you AT&T. They were the company who fought for revoking arbitration rights in contracts. The Supreme Court decided it was legal.

  • MHanak@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    Hold on i just realised

    Some arbitration clauses work both ways, meaning disney can’t sue you just as much as you can’t sue them

    So in theory if you signed up for a free trial or something, pirating (and distributing) any disney content would be absolutely legal

    • molave@reddthat.com
      0·
      3 months ago

      That they have a specific exception for IP tells me all what they really think about their customers.

    • JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      0·
      3 months ago

      Probably not, they say that you agree to settle your disputes with x corporation through arbitration, nothing about x corporation’s disputes with you. Don’t test the most expensive lawyers in the world, especially when they get to pick the arbitor.

      • MHanak@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        I am not saying that’s a good idea, but i know that for example discord’s arbitration clauze explicitly states that it works both ways, so it’s not impossible that disney’s does too

    • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      that’s now how it works. the law does not exist to protect you; it exists to make you tolerate your exploitation and feel like it’s fair.

  • WJWARLOCK@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I read that in Charlie’s voice! Honestly, sounds legit. But…I’m single. No wife here! hahahaha…ha…ha…cries

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    0·
    3 months ago

    Putting myself in her husband’s shoes, I can’t tell how I’d feel about this meme. On one hand, it trivializes his tragedy a little bit, on the other hand, it’s evidence that society is generally outraged about this.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I’m going with the outrage side here: the fact that they are even suggesting that this is legal footing is an affront to humanity

      • inbeesee@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        Difference between this and helium is helium follows rules of the universe, and this fucking contract law is human-enforced.