this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024

1951 points (98.5% liked)

memes

10259 readers

2868 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civil

No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politics

This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent reposts

Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No bots

No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads

No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

[email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
[email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
[email protected] : Linux themed memes
[email protected] : for those who love comic stories.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1951

A nearly comical reminder that corporations aren't your friend. (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

169 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 517 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

Always remember what really happened with the McDonald's lady who sued because her "coffee was too hot".

McDonald's themselves started the campaign that the issue was laughable, and seeded the notion that it's ridiculous, how could she not know coffee hot?

What really happened was that the coffee was:

Served well above safe ranges to maximize profits, so the coffee could be served longer
Was served near boiling temperature
Was so hot that it FUSED HER LABIA requiring extensive surgery to repair.

She sued only for her hospital bills.

They started a smear campaign against her to convince the public that she was a moron and she just wanted a payday.

Don't trust corporations. Ever.

[–] [email protected] 230 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not to mention they were warned many times before about serving coffee that's too hot. The woman got such a huge settlement because the judge was tired of McDonald's crap

[–] [email protected] 107 points 2 months ago

Also they calculated the cost of lawsuits like that and decided they would make more money selling it that hot than they would lose in lawsuits over how hot the coffee was.

[–] [email protected] 118 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)

What's that old quote? "A lie can make it around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes", or something like that? I believe that was pre-internet too.

It also happens with politics. I constantly see provocative headlines get lots of attention in one circle, and then the later corrections only get passed around in the opposite circle, if at all.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Look at just yesterday. One clickbait site said Beyonce was going to perform at the dnc, and by the time the truth and correction made it around it was already past time

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago (6 children)

We desperately need a return of journalistic ethics and bland, just-the-facts news.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] [email protected] 64 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also, she got second degree burns, and she was not the first person to be injured by the coffee, and McDonald's was told multiple times that they served their coffee too hot.

During the trial, McDonald's showed zero care for the the people they injured, to the point that most of the fine that McDonald's ended up paying was punitive damages

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I'm sorry, it fucking welded her pussy shut????

the news did not report on that part

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago

Yes. Yes it did.

No, they did not report that in media.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

I knew about the story, did not know about that detail.. I can feel my own cunt quivering in pain imagining that.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 210 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (11 children)

You can legally kill anyone related to someone who has had Disney+.

Iirc, the wife died, the husband sued, and they tried to say the husband can't sue because HE had had the subscription a long time ago.

Each subscriber loses the right to sue for any of their loved ones.

After all, if they're dead, they can't sue you anyway

[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

If it really boils down to this, how can one fight back? I don't wanna sit here and see these sad articles blow by, what can I do to tell Disney to fuck off. I did not sign up for this, I wanted to watch funny cartoons and superheroes like a normal person, and this is my reward? If suing them is futile, is storming their office and yelling at their corporate head about this any better? I'm pissed, and I can't sit here and wait for other legal heads to shut this stupid clause down.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If it really boils down to this, how can one fight back?

Historically? Guillotines in the village square, and/or Molotovs through the front windows of the overlords’ house. The rich learned a long time ago that when no other recourse is left, people will eventually turn to violence. And they learned that keeping the poors placated is a matter of life or death. Because money and fame won’t stop an angry mob, and even trained soldiers will get overwhelmed by sheer crowd size.

I believe Sun Tsu wrote something applicable in The Art of War, along the lines of “Always leave a surrounded army a way out. Show them a way to life so they will not be compelled to fight to the death. Because even an exhausted army will fight to the death if they have no other option.” So the rich and powerful set up systems that are heavily skewed in the rich’s favor, but at least attempt to appear fair on the surface. They set up a visible “way to life” so that people could at least feel like they had a viable way of fighting back without resorting to violence.

But recently, the rich and powerful seem to have forgotten that, and have dropped all pretext of fairness. Now it’s just blatant “you’re going to be killed and there’s nothing you can do about it.” Which means that the people are eventually going to be forced to fight to the death, because they’re cornered and see no other option. And I genuinely believe that if things carry on this same trajectory that people will turn to violence as a means of recourse, because it’s quickly becoming the only effective recourse that is within reach.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago (2 children)

As time goes on, I am more and more convinced that media piracy is morally acceptable.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago

Always has been... none of this shit is new, just the audacity is amped up.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

It is a moral imperative for anyone who considers themselves to be a protector of their family to just pirate Disney shit instead

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago

He only had a free trial which makes it even crazier. Also I don't know who thought an arbitration demand would apply to food vs a streaming service, but as insane as our court system is with judges siding with money I can't see a judge feeling a TOS could be THAT fluid is like Nike refusing to return a pair of sneakers because you're cousin owned a copy of NBA JAM in the 90's, although you never played it.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 130 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Always remember it's morally ethical to yar har Disney content

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It is by far the best reason they could give anyone for being pro piracy. Forget the morality of it anymore, when the alternative is signing your life away it would be stupid to pay for it.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 80 points 2 months ago (9 children)

The restaurant was directly responsible for the woman's death. The husband went after Disney because it was in Disney Springs and the website said the restaurant worked with allergies. It's more the ghoulish lawyers

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago

It doesn't change what Disney tried to do to get out of it.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 74 points 2 months ago

You are more physically, financially, mentally, and psychologically safe by pirating Disney content than legally renting it.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I can't comprehend how they give so few f's about their image as to even contemplate that in public.

I hate to be a back in my day kinda person, but there was a time at which large family-friendly companies were concerned enough with their image not to pull that shit, at least out loud.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago

Perks of being a monopoly. Every time someone gets upset with them, their response is just dripping with a "you'll be back" mentality. Same as u/spez during the reddit third party app stuff.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

I am going to be the "back in the day" guy. Huge corporations have never been paragons of virtue, but at least they used to be smart enough to protect their image.

"Back in the day", I could see Disney firing the lawyer who was dumb enough to suggest such a strategy.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I love my wife too much not to pirate Snow White.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago (16 children)

I don't know which of these two situations happened

Someone incredibly and insanely out of touch was watching The Boys and thought Vought was a guideline for how a good business operates
Someone on a power trip wanted to try to legalize murder for his brand

I'm not sure which scenario scares me more, the incompetence or the evil.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm guessing the legal department had been looking for a test case to see how far they could take the forced arbitration clause in the Disney+ ToS, but they didn't consult the PR department as to whether this would be a good idea.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why the fuck is it allowed to force arbitration when someone dies? It’s insanity

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's okay, they didn't force arbitration. They decided to "waive their right to do so."

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago

Watching Mr. Robot now makes this meme hit hard

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago

I wonder what the internal discussion looked like after this.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I can't believe they were only seeking 50,000$ too.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

M'fers had a meeting and a lawyer brought up the Disney+ TOS and they all agreed that was a great idea. Corporate nods all around. Idiots.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (14 children)

Don't use Drake memes.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago (2 children)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But for real, shit’s starting to get weird

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We may be trending away from the Bell Riots to Starfleet timeline and more into the Corporate Wars to Rollerball (1975) timeline. May want to brush up on your skating ability.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Disney; just know that if I die because of you my Wife has strict instructions to mail my burning corpse to Bob Iger's home address. We will not see you in court.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments