3 ms·

I just don't get why do this?

lisper 8y ago
Totally uninformed speculation: some lawyer dreamt up a scenario where someone copied-and-pasted the rules into a text editor, edited them, and then claimed in litigation that the edited version was the version that was presented to them. (Or maybe this actually happened!)
- ShakataGaNai 8y ago
  Yea, this is the most likely explanation. Or at least simplified to what a developer would use the commit message of "Appease the insane demands by the Legal Dept". Most aren't technically save and realize that things like no select or no right click are super easy to bypass. Heck, I'm sure 99% of HN readers could simply open up the inspect panel and edit the HTML directly. Screenshot and BAM, look.. Disney TOS "hacked".
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    999 lawyers out of 1000 wouldn't even be aware that no-select or no-right click are possible and I can't think of any potential legal risks that this would mitigate. Edit: The text selection is also turned off on (most of) their terms & conditions.[1] I guess the park has one of those thousand lawyers because it certainly seems like the legal department is behind it. [1] https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/park-experience-terms-conditions/ https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/park-experience-terms-cond...
  - bradknowles 8y ago
    Did you mean "savvy" and not "save"?
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  Slightly less uninformed speculation: Some designer doesn't "like" the I-bar cursor, and selection highlights, and decided it was "prettier" for the page to avoid user selection. Given how general the class name is that includes the user-select: none rule (.scroll-container), this seems like a design idea by some component system designer rather than anything specific to this particular page.
- zeruch 8y ago
  Having dealt with Disney corporate people before, this is not an invalid theory.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Probably just to lower the 'supply' on the supply/demand curve for possible things that could embarrass Disney. The things that go viral on Twitter are not quite controlled by anyone, they're like waves of interest and outrage that build up and quell down. For example, some utterly random, innocuous thing might, in an instant be considered 'out of bounds'. La Sorbonne's enactment of Greek tragedies with Black and White masks are now facing charges of racism, for example. It's a rhetorical stretch, but so many things are today. It just took the right combination of voices to make it 'a thing'. In one of the pamplets, an actress was wearing black makeup, apparently not part of the performance, but that imagery was the fodder for the virality and verbal arguments (i.e. 'they wear masks not makeup) has less value. By simply removing the cut and paste, you cut down on the number of casual bloggers, viewers etc. who grab the data and jam it in a tweet or something else. Obviously, anyone who really wants it can get it, after all it's public. But I can see why from a PR and legal perspective they did this on purpose, it's not hard to fathom. It also might simply be the choice of the dev. And it's odd that it's a discussion point as well!
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  Boy, this went places.
MentallyRetired 8y ago
I don't get why it's on hacker news?
captainredbeard 8y ago
Maybe it's to prevent stale copies of the rules from floating around places. I doubt it works since folks can screenshot it or type it out manually.

Totally uninformed speculation: some lawyer dreamt up a scenario where someone copied-and-pasted the rules into a text editor, edited them, and then claimed in litigation that the edited version was the version that was presented to them. (Or maybe this actually happened!)

ShakataGaNai 8y ago
Yea, this is the most likely explanation. Or at least simplified to what a developer would use the commit message of "Appease the insane demands by the Legal Dept". Most aren't technically save and realize that things like no select or no right click are super easy to bypass. Heck, I'm sure 99% of HN readers could simply open up the inspect panel and edit the HTML directly. Screenshot and BAM, look.. Disney TOS "hacked".
- elliekelly 8y ago
  999 lawyers out of 1000 wouldn't even be aware that no-select or no-right click are possible and I can't think of any potential legal risks that this would mitigate. Edit: The text selection is also turned off on (most of) their terms & conditions.[1] I guess the park has one of those thousand lawyers because it certainly seems like the legal department is behind it. [1] https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/park-experience-terms-conditions/ https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/park-experience-terms-cond...
- bradknowles 8y ago
  Did you mean "savvy" and not "save"?
WorldMaker 8y ago
Slightly less uninformed speculation: Some designer doesn't "like" the I-bar cursor, and selection highlights, and decided it was "prettier" for the page to avoid user selection. Given how general the class name is that includes the user-select: none rule (.scroll-container), this seems like a design idea by some component system designer rather than anything specific to this particular page.
zeruch 8y ago
Having dealt with Disney corporate people before, this is not an invalid theory.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Probably just to lower the 'supply' on the supply/demand curve for possible things that could embarrass Disney. The things that go viral on Twitter are not quite controlled by anyone, they're like waves of interest and outrage that build up and quell down. For example, some utterly random, innocuous thing might, in an instant be considered 'out of bounds'. La Sorbonne's enactment of Greek tragedies with Black and White masks are now facing charges of racism, for example. It's a rhetorical stretch, but so many things are today. It just took the right combination of voices to make it 'a thing'. In one of the pamplets, an actress was wearing black makeup, apparently not part of the performance, but that imagery was the fodder for the virality and verbal arguments (i.e. 'they wear masks not makeup) has less value. By simply removing the cut and paste, you cut down on the number of casual bloggers, viewers etc. who grab the data and jam it in a tweet or something else. Obviously, anyone who really wants it can get it, after all it's public. But I can see why from a PR and legal perspective they did this on purpose, it's not hard to fathom. It also might simply be the choice of the dev. And it's odd that it's a discussion point as well!

happytoexplain 8y ago
Boy, this went places.

MentallyRetired 8y ago

I don't get why it's on hacker news?

captainredbeard 8y ago

Maybe it's to prevent stale copies of the rules from floating around places. I doubt it works since folks can screenshot it or type it out manually.