4 ms·
Yes, except this person DID cancel her Disney+. More accurately, she never signed up for it, merely ran a free trial for a month in 2019. So the only possible w
by mcherm 2y ago
Yes, except this person DID cancel her Disney+. More accurately, she never signed up for it, merely ran a free trial for a month in 2019. So the only possible way to avoid this, if Disney's argument was upheld, would be to have never interacted with Disney at all in any way.
- gambiting 2y ago>>. More accurately, she never signed up for it, merely ran a free trial for a month in 2019 It's actually not even that. The person who died had the free trial, and now Disney is being sued by her husband - and her husband has never had a Disney+ trial or any other service with such an agreement with them. So like the article says - Disney is trying to anforce an agreement that this person(the husband ) has never signed.
- jawns 2y agoYour point is correct, but you've got it backward. It was the husband who signed up for the free trial and bought tickets to Epcot. Yet he is suing not on his own behalf, but on behalf of her estate, and she never entered into any such agreement. You can think of it this way: Disney wronged the woman who died. She is the one who is owed damages. But since she's dead, her estate is owed damages. Her husband is the administrator of her estate, and he is suing on its behalf. So whatever agreements he has entered into in his individual capacity are irrelevant. It would be like trying to force arbitration on someone because their lawyer had a Disney+ subscription. That doesn't mean that they themselves entered into an agreement with Disney.
- gambiting 2y agoAh. Totally got it wrong then, thanks for explaining :-)
- jawns 2y ago[flagged]
- ASalazarMX 2y agoForgive me if I'm being too grumpy, but giving others the gift of cheap AI output is a trend I'm beginning to see everywhere, and I really hope it doesn't become more popular. I frequent a few programming communities, and right now a question like "How do people solve objects clipping into walls in isometric Godot games?" will have at least one person posting what chatGPT told them without even checking if it's relevant. I guess my point is, proxying LLMs should be considered low-effort participation in most discussions.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tstenner 2y agoAlso, the rhyme scheme is just plain wrong.
- compsciphd 2y agoHN denizens don't like when AI experiments are run on them ;)
- 7thaccount 2y ago"Never interacting with Disney to begin with" is now a goal of mine. I occasionally watch something on Disney+ with the kids, but it's been awhile and Netflix has been a much better value. This kind of bullying makes me even more likely to cancel. As far as their parks go, I have been extremely disappointed in the past. Six Flags may be a gross dumpster, but it's at least got a bunch of cool rides and is much cheaper. I was blown away by the mediocrity and datedness of Disney World. It's hot and humid there with no shade in the park. Who wants to sit in the sun for an hour to wait for a ride that's okay at best. I may take my kid once just so they can have that experience, but I'll probably take them someplace much better for 1/4 the cost instead. I get it that some people really enjoy the parks and movies though and that's fine (to each their own).
- gorbachev 2y agoDisney parks are primarily designed for people who are already Disney fans, like little kids who want to meet real princesses.
- mcherm 2y ago> I occasionally watch something on Disney+ Then it's too late for you (according to this legal theory). You have permanently lost your ability to use the court system against Disney.
- brookst 2y ago> would be to have never interacted with Disney at all in any way Yes, that is the PR risk. How much will Disney save in this one case, against the background meme of "if you ever watch anything Disney they are free to kill you" (that's not accurate, but memes rarely are). IMO this is lawyers finding a local maximum that is bad for the company in general.
- exe34 2y agoyou say it's not accurate, but that's exactly what they are claiming here. worse, the woman they killed never even had Disney+. it's like they murder somebody, but the prosecutor once had Disney+ - boom, immunity.