• they/them

butch lesbian android w/ swappable body parts (20's)

mutuals will receive my discord upon request <3

💖 visit my wife SapphicRage 💖


letterboxd (movies)
letterboxd.com/raysvideo/

nex3
@nex3

isn't it stunningly obvious how bad the PR on this is? not just because it's evil, but because if the argument succeeds Disney creates a massive incentive never to engage with any of their products. surely paying out this guy—or relying on the much stronger case of "we don't actually run the restaurant and so are not loable"—would be far less expensive than losing all those sales


estrogen-and-spite
@estrogen-and-spite

No themeparks, because if something happens there I’m forced into arbitration.
No toys, if one of them is defective and causes harm I’m forced into arbitration.
No video games, if somehow it’s so badly made it damages my expensive electronics I’m etc etc

Basically if you can conceive of a way something could go bad, you shouldn’t buy Disney anything if you have ever had Disney+ ever.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @nex3's post:

I imagine at this point that Disney feels comfortable enough in their media monopoly that they don't really have to care too hard about PR

(whether that's actually the case is a different story)

It feels more plausible to me that a lawyer(s) saw it as a potential angle to take and went for it without consulting anyone who would have seen it as a disaster. like i don't think this was a take that the whole company was ready to get behind

i've heard it said that one of their goals is to run up legal costs for the plaintiff cause nobody's ever even had to defend against an argument this stupid before, so it prolongs the case.
the other thing is that, if they somehow succeeded, they'd be in a brilliant spot to absolutely fuck over all 150(?) million disney plus users. so i guess thats a thing