2 ms·

I think it's very clear to follow. Here is why: Since Disney is not facing legal threat, there is no requirement for legal argument. Only PR statements suffice

by nabla9 5y ago

I think it's very clear to follow. Here is why: Since Disney is not facing legal threat, there is no requirement for legal argument. Only PR statements suffice. There is no need to say something legally valid. From the corporate viewpoint contracts only matter if there is credible threat of enforcing the contract. If there is none, they can brush it off. Shaming game tries to attack reputation, but big corporations like Disney have deals with them for decades and they know masses don't turn against them.

javajosh 5y ago
This is basically correct, but I'd refine it a bit, and note that it's about opportunity cost for the victim to pursue justice being much higher than the upside of a victory. This is a side-effect of a justice system that prices most people out of using it effectively. Interestingly, this failure of the justice system is responsible for a lot of today's "cultural" problems, but for some reason it never gets named as the underlying factor.
MereInterest 5y ago
Rephrasing, I can understand perfectly from the context of motives and incentives, where a company's incentive is to maximize their bank account regardless of the law. The confusion comes from why they bothered with this particular explanation. Usually, maximizing a company's bank account in the face of potential legal threat either means ignoring somebody entirely for the case of small fry, or starting the PR posturing that will eventually become a full legal defense. If the legal defense is as flimsy as it seems to me, then the only reason for this type of PR statement would be to demoralize others. To send a message that their actual legal defense doesn't even matter, because they'll win anyways. This seems like a pretty strong statement to make, so I'm trying to figure out where my misunderstanding lies.

2 ms·

I think it's very clear to follow. Here is why: Since Disney is not facing legal threat, there is no requirement for legal argument. Only PR statements suffice

by nabla9 5y ago

javajosh 5y ago
This is basically correct, but I'd refine it a bit, and note that it's about opportunity cost for the victim to pursue justice being much higher than the upside of a victory. This is a side-effect of a justice system that prices most people out of using it effectively. Interestingly, this failure of the justice system is responsible for a lot of today's "cultural" problems, but for some reason it never gets named as the underlying factor.
MereInterest 5y ago
Rephrasing, I can understand perfectly from the context of motives and incentives, where a company's incentive is to maximize their bank account regardless of the law. The confusion comes from why they bothered with this particular explanation. Usually, maximizing a company's bank account in the face of potential legal threat either means ignoring somebody entirely for the case of small fry, or starting the PR posturing that will eventually become a full legal defense. If the legal defense is as flimsy as it seems to me, then the only reason for this type of PR statement would be to demoralize others. To send a message that their actual legal defense doesn't even matter, because they'll win anyways. This seems like a pretty strong statement to make, so I'm trying to figure out where my misunderstanding lies.