• Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Does anyone have a TL;DW? Cause I just smashed the transcript into DuckDuckGo AI Chat on GPT-4o and asked it to summarise it and it came up with this

    In the video, the speaker discusses a legal case involving Disney and a patron who died after being served food that did not accommodate their allergies, despite assurances from Disney and the restaurant. The key point is that the patron’s ability to sue Disney was hindered by a forced arbitration clause in the Disney+ agreement, which the speaker argues effectively protects Disney from liability. The speaker emphasizes the irony that if the patron had pirated Disney content instead of paying for it, they might have had a better chance of seeking justice in court. This situation is used to highlight broader frustrations with corporate practices, such as restrictive digital rights management (DRM) and the way companies redefine terms like “purchase” to limit consumer rights. The speaker expresses anger at the notion that paying customers are often treated worse than those who pirate content, arguing that this creates a system that punishes people for doing the right thing. They call for a reevaluation of how companies treat their customers, advocating for fairer practices that do not penalize those who choose to pay for content. The video concludes with a strong critique of corporate policies that prioritize profit over consumer rights and satisfaction.

    Which isn’t helping enough

    • matey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Disney lawyers are using an arbitration clause in their Disney account agreement to try to dismiss a lawsuit over a death caused by allergies at Raglan Road. You should be able to find the articles from there.

      It’s a bit simplistic to say that it’s specifically a Disney+ issues.