Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television

Disney+ Tops 100 Million Subscribers Worldwide (variety.com) 130

Disney+ continues to grow apace, topping 100 million subscribers worldwide, Disney CEO Bob Chapek said Tuesday during its annual shareholders meeting. That's up from the 94.9 million Disney reported last month. From a report: "The enormous success of Disney+ has inspired us to be even more ambitious, and to significantly increase our investment in the development of high-quality content," Chapek said. "In fact, we set a target of 100-plus new titles per year, and this includes Disney Animation, Disney Live Action, Marvel, Star Wars, and National Geographic. Our direct-to-consumer business is the Company's top priority, and our robust pipeline of content will continue to fuel its growth."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney+ Tops 100 Million Subscribers Worldwide

Comments Filter:
  • no thanks (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Not one of them. I have kept to my pledge. I pirate anything I want from them as the pricks are one of the primary instigators in fracturing the streaming market forcing people that want a wide selection of shows to sign up for lots of services, fuck you disney.
    • Re:no thanks (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @05:48PM (#61141958) Journal
      Entitled much?
      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        not entitled at all, happy to pay for my content. not happy to have to pay half a dozen or more different providers because they want to be arseholes with licensing.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

          happy to pay for my content

          If you don't mind I'm going to come around and take your car. No you didn't sell it to me. I actually bought another car from someone else but somehow you seem to be okay with that meaning I'm entitled to *any* car, so I'm taking yours. I'll be by at 8pm.

          • Re:no thanks (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ahodgson ( 74077 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @08:00PM (#61142404)

            You can't have my car, but you can make a copy of it.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            It's not quite that simple because these companies want their shows to be an event. They want people to talk about the latest episode, and that means spoilers all over the place. So either you pay up and be part of the socialization, or you don't and miss out.

            Of course a lot of people are happy to miss out, delaying or simply not participating ever. That's fine, but the point is that these companies create artificial time pressure as a means of encouraging subscription. Particularly for young people with li

          • by shanen ( 462549 )

            Should be "Since you don't mind..."

            Okay, it's still funny, but it's still feeding a troll.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • happy to pay for my content. not happy to have to pay

          One statement contradicts the other.

          • of course they contradict when you are intentionally take them out of context by cutting off the rest of the statement.
        • by mark-t ( 151149 )
          I'm not happy about having to pay a bunch of different providers just because of licensing issues either, but that dissatisfaction does not translate to me having any entitlement to the content without paying for it. I either suck it up and pay for it, or else more often, I realize that it's not something I actually *need*, and can carry on in my life without it.
      • If all they give me is a mere *copy* of the *result* of somebody *else*'s work, then all they will ever get from me, is also a mere copy of the result of my or somebody else's work.

        So call me when I can hire a mechanic, have him fix people's cars for money, leech off most of that money, put it on a photocopier and go buy shit with those copies... under legal protection by law... yelling at everyone who doesn't play along "THAT IS MY LABOR PROPERTY, YOU SEAFARING RAPIST THUGS!!", and display big billboards a

    • poor baby, you have to use a service other than Netflix

      • using a service other than netflix doesn't bother me. however it is getting pretty fucking painful here is Australia, not sure what rest of world is like. Between Geo Fencing, exclusive license deals etc you would need to sign up to 5 or 6 providers now as opposed to a couple.
        • you would need to sign up to 5 or 6 providers

          Why on earth? Do we really need access to 100% of movie libraries?

          There are some movies I'd *love* to see but they're not on any library I know of. (Especially here in Australia, which you already mentioned.) Shrug, I guess I won't get to watch them. I'll get by.

          • 5 or 6 would not get you anywhere close to 100% of movie libraries in Australia. That will get you a cut down subset.
    • Right so the writers, actors, set decorators, and graphic artists have to work for you for free?

      • wow - thats exactly what he said - word for word
      • nice straw man you have there! the OP was complaining about the splintering of content and content exclusive deals that are happening across the industry. Maybe he also isn't willing to pay but no where do they say that.
    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Not one of them. I have kept to my pledge. I pirate anything I want from them as the pricks are one of the primary instigators in fracturing the streaming market forcing people that want a wide selection of shows to sign up for lots of services, fuck you disney.

      What, first people complained of cable channels being bundled, where if you want Disney channel you had to buy ESPN2 and a dozen other channels you didn't want. Everyone clamored for a la carte where they could buy a channel by themselves.

      Then people

    • Disney broke the bargain. Copyright was granted for a limited time, to promote the development of arts for the public domain. They're removed all meaningful time limits, destroying the original purpose, while a good part of the content that contributed to their rise was stolen from the public domain. There was no moral obligation to respect their copyright before this.
  • Not here (Score:2, Redundant)

    even Netflix and Prime are getting useless now as 99% of the the new shows suck and I already have most of what I re watch every year on file.

  • when they're literally giving the subscriptions away for free for a year... let's see how many subscribers they have in 5 years.
    • Yeah it couldn't possibly be the decent catalog of popular stuff and the barrage of new shows that have been so well received.

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      Free? Where and without giving them your personal datas (e.g., address and credit card)?

    • by leonbev ( 111395 )

      Yeah... I want to know how many people are actually paying for a Disney+ subscription. I'd imagine that most people are like myself, and getting the service for "free" as part of our cell phone plan.

      The Disney+ catalog kinda sucks. Other than The Mandalorian, I think that I've watched about 6 hours of their other content. I'll keep it if it's free, but I'd never pay a monthly fee for this.

      When Discovery+, Hulu, or ESPN+ release their membership numbers, you should be taking those with a huge grain of salt a

      • I remember calling this out when I first got the offer, saying something along the lines of, "Wow, a 'free trial' that lasts for a full year?! They must be desperate to artificially boost their numbers right out of the gate!"
    • Yeah, we'll be cancelling ours when the free trial is over.

      Disney do seem to have realised this is going to be a problem. They're advertising their new stuff quite heavily right now, so I guess we're not likely to be the only ones leaving at the end of the month. In the UK we have a handful of regular TV channels which really do have decent stuff on them (occasionally), so even with no streaming services, you can watch some meaningful TV most of the time here. Maybe we're a tough crowd because of that...?

      [A

  • So how much of this pipeline of content will go back into the vault till it can be milked for more profit from the nostalgic and forgetful?

  • 100 titles a year won't do it. That's less than 2 new movies or episodes a week. Given that the average American watches more than that per day their content will get very stale very fast. Half of those are making of, shorts, or "specials" which further dilutes the pool. The value just isn't there.

    For context Netflix is more than double that per year (214 averaged over 7 years) with relatively few in the making of/shorts/specials categories.

    • 100 new "titles" per year would mean 100 new movies or shows - not episodes.

      I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what they've said - just clarifying what it appears the target is from the words used.

    • by brunes69 ( 86786 )

      Disney is not trying to compete with Netflix. They target a totally different market & most families will have both.

      My 5 year old watches the same shows & episodes on Disney+ over, and over, and over... she doesn't care how many times she has seen Bluey Season 1, she watches it again and again and again.... which is what kids do. It is what I did when I was a kid.

      And as a parent, having the whole Disney library available to her on demand is worth it by itself. The adult-oriented content on Disney fr

      • by armada ( 553343 )
        You let your kid watch the same shows over and over? To what end? What are they gaining?
  • Despite some pretty heavy losses to its theme parks and cruise line, Disney has brought in quite a bit of online entertainment revenue. So while I wouldn’t say the stock is overvalued today (despite all the recent months gains), it likely does have some reasonable growth potential if theme parks come back up to full capacity, cruise companies keep up their slow rebound, and Disney media presence expands further. Even cruise
  • https://nypost.com/2020/11/20/... [nypost.com]

    If it's okay for Disney to not pay, it must be all right for us too, right?

  • If they continue to release Star Wars and Marvel series throughout the year they will keep the tween/young teen market hooked.

  • Because there are too many careless, ignorant and stupid people falling for it.

    And because good doesn't lack the conscience to employ similar schemes, even if the end result would be much better.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • #CancelDisney+ (Score:4, Insightful)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @06:41PM (#61142152) Homepage

    My wife and I signed up for Disney+ when The Mandalorian started. We didn't have plans to keep the service, but I said to my wife "I'm willing to pay the monthly fee just for The Mandalorian. Let's keep it."

    Then Disney fired Gina Carano in an ugly way. They didn't do the usual thing of "Gina Carano has decided to pursue other opportunities"... an official spokesperson said that not only was Carano not working for them but (exact quote): "her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable." Also, nobody warned Gina Carano that this was happening; she was completely blindsided.

    IMHO firing her in this way was an attempt to make her so radioactive that she would never work again in Hollywood. To destroy her career.

    My wife and I canceled Disney+ the next day, and entered our reason in the little text box so Disney would be able to add us to their statistics.

    Note: I had to rewrite this section because the Slashdot "lameness filter" doesn't like certain words. I'm sure you can figure out what I'm saying.

    Gina Carano was allegedly fired for posting something "hateful" on social media. She did make a comparison between people ginning up hate in modern times vs. the government of Germany ginning up hate against a religious/ethnic minority 80 years ago; but no reasonable person would read what she wrote and think "she approves of hating that ethnic minority". I do think a reasonable person could say her comparison is offensive because it trivializes the horrific events in Germany 8 decades ago, but I don't think it's a firing offense. And doubly so because Pedro Pascal made a social media post comparing the US "kids in cages" at the border vs. concentration camps; and not only was he not fired, he was not apparently in any trouble at all. I think many people believe that his post was okay because he was criticizing a Republican President's policies; but whatever the reason, it's clear that there was a different standard applied to Gina Carano.

    https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/film-and-tv/what-did-gina-carano-say-why-actor-has-been-fired-from-disney-show-the-mandalorian-after-abhorrent-instagram-post-and-her-response-3131574 [scotsman.com]

    There are persistent rumors that there is a "civil war" inside the Star Wars branch of Disney. One faction wants to make Star Wars content that feels like the original movies; the other faction wants to use Star Wars as a vehicle to showcase "strong women" and push progressive politics. I haven't seen solid proof but I've seen enough indirect proof that I believe it. One person who works on Star Wars in an official capacity used social media to mock a YouTube vlogger who was literally moved to tears by the last episode of The Mandalorian... why would anyone mock a paying customer for liking the product your employer makes? Could it be because there's a civil war and he's from the faction that hates The Mandalorian? (In fairness, for all we know, maybe he was given a stern warning "do that again and you're fired". But he certainly didn't get the Gina Carano treatment, he still works for Disney.)

    There's a guy who puts videos on YouTube who goes by the name "Ya Boi Zack". Zack says that if quitting Disney+ would make you regret missing out on some shows, consider joining for just a month and then quitting again, and doing this one or a few times per year. And each time you quit, make your reason explicit. Canceling Disney+ doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing.

    So I figure eventually I'll get Disney+ for a month and binge-watch WandaVision and Mandalorian season 3 and whatever. And then cancel again, and say why again.

    Please consider doing the same as me. #CancelDisney+

    P.S. If Disney offers a public apology to Gina Carano I'll sign up again for Disney+. I'll bet it won't happen.

    • Re:#CancelDisney+ (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @08:34PM (#61142466) Homepage Journal

      That's how cancel culture works. They take something someone said, and they change it just a little bit. Just enough that it still sounds similar enough to what they said that people will accept it, but with a subtle semantic shift that allows them to misconstrue it as something truly monstrous, that every reasonable person would agree is terrible including the very person they misquote. Then they push that false narrative on a huge crowd of people who are very quick to get angry and very slow to check facts, thus creating an angry mob that demands people be fired.

      We saw it happen to James Damore, and RIchard Stallman, and now Gina Carano.

      I think it is absolutely unforgivable that an angry mob with twisted facts can act as judge, jury, and executioner for someone's career. This prevents any possibility for reasonable discussion on any important topic. But that isn't stopping the mob, nor is it stopping the corporate controllers who fear the mob.

      I would like to see a cultural push-back against this, but the very people best positioned to de-fang this mob are the ones who fear lost profits from failing to appease it.

      The situation is very unfortunate.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Interestingly when discussions of RMS, Carano and Damore were held here I often posted extracts, or links to the complete work. The reaction was usually a down-mod from their supporters, apparently desperate to make sure nobody could read the actual thing they said and instead only get their paraphrased, sanitized version of it, with plenty of framing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It's difficult to tell if you're misinformed or trolling, but it wasn't "gina said one thing, fire her". She had said a bunch of controversial things and refused to listen to Disney's PR department. That seems like a pretty fireable offense. And Disney's statement makes it seem like she was already fired before the tweet you're focusing on based on the other tweets.

      I have no idea which kids in cages tweet you are referencing, but I did see an isolated one where he compared defeating Trump in an election

      • Re:#CancelDisney+ (Score:4, Insightful)

        by steveha ( 103154 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2021 @09:33PM (#61142608) Homepage

        It's difficult to tell if you're misinformed or trolling, but it wasn't "gina said one thing, fire her". She had said a bunch of controversial things and refused to listen to Disney's PR department. That seems like a pretty fireable offense.

        Actually, she did listen to Disney's PR department. What she refused to do was publish statements written by other people; she wanted to write everything she posted under her name.

        It's true that some people got bent out of shape by things she posted. But she made the mistake of thinking she had the same free speech as anyone else. Nearly half the country voted for Trump, but Pedro Pascal felt free to compare Trump voters to several bad groups... and he was right; he suffered no consequences, didn't even have to apologize.

        Pedro Pascal was not fired. Gina Carano was fired in spectacular fashion: blindsided, denigrated, and (coincidentally? not coincidentally?) instantly dropped by the talent agency that had been representing her.

        I would accept a standard that would call for this being done to her, if the standard was clearly spelled out to her and everyone else, in advance, and if it was applied equally to everyone. But Pedro Pascal makes it clear that there are multiple standards in play here: one for him, and a much tougher one for Gina Carano.

        Fire Pedro Pascal, or apologize to Gina Carano. Double standards suck.

        https://bit.ly/3vceeS8 [bit.ly]

        I have no idea which kids in cages tweet you are referencing

        Screenshot in this article:

        https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/cltr/fire-pedro-pascal-carano.html [giantfreakinrobot.com]

        Mocking someone moved by your content is good social media strategy

        It's difficult to tell if you are stupid or trolling. It was a public relations gaffe and the guy who did it had to publicly apologize.

        He walked it back completely and claimed that it was sarcastic self-mockery, definitely not mocking a fan, oh no not at all.

        https://www.thewrap.com/lucasfilm-exe-pablo-hidalgo-apologizes-star-wars-theory-youtuber-sarcastic-subtweet/ [thewrap.com]

        https://www.piratesandprincesses.net/lucasfilms-pablo-hidalgo-mocking-a-youtuber-is-indicative-of-star-wars-under-disney-ownership/ [piratesandprincesses.net]

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by bloodhawk ( 813939 )
          You are confusing free speech with free from consequences. She does have exactly the same free speech rights as everyone else, but just like everyone else she is not free from the consequences of that speech which can include your employer not wanting to be associated with you any longer. I don't agree with Disney's approach but what they did is entirely inside the realms of freedom of speech and expression.
          • by steveha ( 103154 )

            I don't agree with Disney's approach but what they did is entirely inside the realms of freedom of speech and expression.

            And I am entirely free to disapprove, and call for people to cancel their Disney+ subscription over this.

            Double standards suck. I'd like all Disney employees to have free speech. Second choice: Disney tells everyone the rules (what would get one fired) and then applies the rules equally.

            And if you really want to defend a megacorporation for trying to destroy a woman's career because of

            • yes you are entirely free to do that, that isn't a double standard. All disney employees do have free speech, i.e. they will not be prosecuted by the government for the views they express. All companies have rules, especially around public figures and what they say in the media, if you don't like the rules you leave or are asked to leave. That ability by both parties to exercise that freedom is a core part of an open and free society but also means sometimes people do or say shit you don't agree with.
              • by steveha ( 103154 )

                All disney employees do have free speech, i.e. they will not be prosecuted by the government for the views they express.

                Don't be disingenuous. You know perfectly well that the topic of discussion is Disney firing one employee and not firing another employee when both did essentially the same thing.

                So the actual state of things is that there are different rules for different people. Pedro Pascal is free to post whatever he wants because his politics are similar to those of senior Disney executives; Gina Ca

                • Gina Carano was fired for trumped-up reasons just because Disney executives didn't like her.

                  Now you're being disingenuous. Carano's firing was not for trumped up reasons; it was well stated what she was fired over, and those social media posts are not difficult to find.

                  Pissing off the bosses is one of the best ways to get yourself fired.

                • How is that being disingenuous. You are specifically referencing rights to free speech, free speech is defined as her rights not to be persecuted by the government, it has nothing to do with what a company does or doesn't do or how they choose to hire and fire employees. Disney is not part of the government, they don't have any obligation to treat her the same as Pedro, She wasn't fired for trumped up reasons either, they were very well defined reasons and she even received warnings prior. I still don't agr
                  • You are specifically referencing rights to free speech, free speech is defined as her rights not to be persecuted by the government

                    Free speech is a principal that is in no way limited to a governments legal regime.

                    they don't have any obligation to treat her the same as Pedro, She wasn't fired for trumped up reasons either, they were very well defined reasons and she even received warnings prior. I still don't agree with Disney but they are acting well within their rights.

                    Has anyone even argued something illegal was done? When you find yourself resorting to "It's not illegal" to justify a course of action probably well past time to stop digging.

                    • He claimed that Disney staff had less rights to free speech than everyone else. Which is blatantly untrue and can only really be put against laws.

                      The claim is correct, public figures do not enjoy the same freedom of speech randos enjoy. If a public figure says something heretical to what is socially acceptable they get ruined. If a rando does it nobody cares.

                      but to suggest it shows she had less rights is simply a lack of understanding of what Free Speech is.

                      Free speech is simply a concept that people are free to communicate their opinions without reprisal.

                      Your chance of being ruined for saying something people don't like when you are a public figure are much higher than nameless randos.

                    • by steveha ( 103154 )

                      He claimed that Disney staff had less rights to free speech than everyone else.

                      No, I claimed that in practice Gina Carano did not have the same "free speech" as other Disney employees such as Pedro Pascal.

                      A few people are trying to make hay out of the fact that I used the words "free speech", claiming that "free speech" only applies to government regulation of speech. So I guess to properly lawyer-proof my comments what I should have said was:

                      "Gina Carano made the mistake of thinking that just because othe

          • You are confusing free speech with free from consequences.

            Free speech means exactly this.

            She does have exactly the same free speech rights as everyone else

            Obviously not true. Public facing figures are routinely held to vastly different standards than normals who are able to say far worse shit than she could imagine without getting ruined.

            but just like everyone else she is not free from the consequences of that speech which can include your employer not wanting to be associated with you any longer.

            The consequences of expressing an opinion?

            I don't agree with Disney's approach but what they did is entirely inside the realms of freedom of speech and expression.

            Their actions are the antithesis of free speech and freedom of expression.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          This is free speech and the marketplace of ideas at work.

          People criticised both of them. Other people listened to those criticisms and evaluated them. The ones in positions to affect the careers of these two actors decided that Pascal's comments were okay with them, and Carano's were not.

          Isn't this the ideal, the way things should be? People free to speak, free to listen, free to decide for themselves how to react. I'd be interested to hear how you would have it otherwise, while still protecting those freed

          • Re:#CancelDisney+ (Score:4, Insightful)

            by steveha ( 103154 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2021 @06:20AM (#61143434) Homepage

            I'd be interested to hear how you would have it otherwise, while still protecting those freedoms.

            Dude, I'm not sure how I can make this more clear.

            I didn't suggest any changes to laws. I didn't suggest someone sue Disney. I announced that I had canceled my Disney+ subscription, and encouraged others to do the same.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Okay then, just exercising your freedom is fine. Do you think it will be effective?

              • by steveha ( 103154 )

                Okay then, just exercising your freedom is fine. Do you think it will be effective?

                Generally I assume that large corporations don't care about me and don't pay attention to what I do. I don't want to reward bad behavior even so.

                However, in this case, there are rumors that the Disney brass is paying attention to the wave of cancellations of Disney+. However, I am not at all dialed-in on the inner workings of the entertainment industry in general, or Disney in particular; so I have no way to judge whether t

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  High Republic seems to be a long way off, the next shows in the SW franchise will be The Bad Batch (clone troopers) and something about Ahsoka Tano. The latter having already been cast as a black woman as well received in The Mandalorian.

                  These sites and YouTube channels are just outrage merchants. Mando himself is played by a latino actor, and if you go back you will find that there was all sorts of complaints about that being a diversity hire and wokism gone mad. The primary antagonist is black. Yet the s

                  • by steveha ( 103154 )

                    High Republic seems to be a long way off

                    No, it's here now. It's "an interconnected mega-story, told across books, comics, and magazines." You can buy the first ones already.

                    https://books.disney.com/star-wars-the-high-republic/ [disney.com]

                    the next shows in the SW franchise will be The Bad Batch (clone troopers) and something about Ahsoka Tano. The latter having already been cast as a black woman as well received in The Mandalorian.

                    Didn't you hear? Having claimed Gina Carano's scalp, the #Cancel mob now has its sights

                    • by steveha ( 103154 )

                      The rumors could be just made-up nonsense. However:

                      0) These same sources have printed some incredible-sounding rumors in the past, which turned out to be true.

                      1) The rumors explain some weird stuff, like why an official Star Wars spokeswoman would have a photo of Luke Skywalker with his face covered by a red X, why Disney didn't just fire Gina Carano but tried to destroy her career, and why Hasbro was ordered to stop selling a popular toy.

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      Tried to destroy her career... She had already left the show by that time. Her character was not expected to return.

                    • by steveha ( 103154 )

                      Tried to destroy her career...

                      Yes, as in make her unable to work as an actress ever again. Not just destroy her career at Disney, destroy it everywhere.

                      They didn't just not invite her back. They didn't do the polite fiction of "Gina Carano has chosen to pursue other opportunities" or even "We have no new scripts using her character". They made a special announcement that not only was she never going to work for Disney again, but that she had written "unacceptable and abhorrent" things.

                      And the talent agen

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      So how would you square this with freedom of speech? Because it sounds like you are saying people should not criticise if there is a risk of that criticism damaging the subject's career.

                      In any case it's a leap to say that her agency dropped her because of Disney. Maybe they just didn't like what she said.

                    • by steveha ( 103154 )

                      it sounds like you are saying people should not criticise if there is a risk of that criticism damaging the subject's career.

                      All I'm saying is that an extraordinary firing really ought to have extraordinary bad circumstances to justify it, but in this case IMHO Disney was deliberately making a bad-faith misinterpretation of what she said as an excuse to fire her in this fashion. It was "how can we fire her" and then "oh, we can use this". Not at all "look what she just posted, what do we do next, I guess

          • This is free speech and the marketplace of ideas at work.

            This is intolerance at work.

            The so called "marketplace of ideas" you describe is one in which shopkeepers use coercive force to sell their wares. Buy this or I'll call your boss and get you fired. Buy this or uncle Guido here will make sure you can't afford a taxi ride home when we are done with you. Rather than a functioning competitive market where what is up for sale is judged on the merits it devolves into a marketplace operated by a bunch of selfish mobsters.

            People criticised both of them. Other people listened to those criticisms and evaluated them. The ones in positions to affect the careers of these two actors decided that Pascal's comments were okay with them, and Carano's were not.

            Isn't this the ideal, the way things should be? People free to speak, free to listen, free to decide for themselves how to react. I'd be interested to hear how you would have it otherwise, while still protecting those freedoms.

            By this logic Chinese businesses just exe

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Okay, but how do you plan to address this perceived issue? Is there a way you can stop someone calling your boss to complain about your behaviour, without draconian measures?

              • Okay, but how do you plan to address this perceived issue? Is there a way you can stop someone calling your boss to complain about your behaviour, without draconian measures?

                This problem is not legal systems. The problem of judgment, disrespect and intolerance is a reflection of declining society. No system of governance can insulate the governed from the consequences of a breakdown of society.

                The way to curtail the behavior is to build consensus that ultimately it is in everyone's best interests to respect others, withold judgement and tolerate errors of opinion rather than creating echo-chambers which promote and justify judgement, intolerance and disrespect.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • by steveha ( 103154 )

            Gina Carano was fired in spectacular fashion

            No she wasn't. This is a lie.

            I posted links documenting what Disney said about her, and documenting that Disney didn't even tell her in advance. If you want to split hairs and say that making a special announcement that an actor would never work again is not the same thing as "firing" the actor, that's on you.

            I'll let the readers decide whether it makes sense to call what I wrote "a lie".

            Carano was already off the Mandalorian at the time of her statements. It lit

          • That's a euphemism for firing someone, which btw they did in ugly fashion.

            If they really finished all the parts for that character why are they recasting the character?

            Also you sure you're not the one lying here?
        • Gina Carano was fired in spectacular fashion: blindsided, denigrated, and (coincidentally? not coincidentally?) instantly dropped by the talent agency that had been representing her.

          So you completely ignore both what I said and the Disney statement which said she wasn't hired at the time of the tweet? Man, I'm about to get spectacularly fired from my first job I haven't been to in years.

          Also, apparently, wwhat she wrote herself didn't pass muster for the Disney PR department. You can rephrase things, but

          • by steveha ( 103154 )

            So you completely ignore both what I said and the Disney statement which said she wasn't hired at the time of the tweet? Man, I'm about to get spectacularly fired from my first job I haven't been to in years.

            If that job has an official PR representative make a public announcement that you will never work there again, and that you have written "unacceptable and abhorrent" things on social media; and if national news media reports that you were fired... then I will concede some similarities.

            If you just don't

            • Obviously Pedro Pascal didn't get in trouble because he was criticizing the Trump administration, and Gina Carano did get in trouble because she clearly was saying that it's bad to gin up hate against conservatives

              Alternatively, one was talking about locking up a minority group in cages and wondering if that was a concentration camp, and the other is comparing saying mean things to the holocaust. I found what Gina said to be dumb and offensive but not Pedro, not because of right/left teaming but because Pe

              • by steveha ( 103154 )

                Here's a high-level summary of Gina Carano's point:

                She said that before the Germans put a bunch of victims into concentration camps, they first spent a long time ginning up hate against the ethnic group. By the time it got to the point of rounding the victims up to take them to concentration camps, the average German didn't feel like intervening because the campaign to stir up hate against the victims was successful.

                She then compared that campaign of ginning up hate to the current practice of ginning up ha

    • Live by the free market, die by the free market. This is exactly what conservatives asked for. The right of businesses to tell anyone they want to fuck off, even if it's for something constitutionally protected, because *their* rights were more important. You have no room to complain. Also, her tweets made her radioactive, not Disney repeating what other people thought of them. Disney reacted to the backlash, they didn't create it.
      • by armada ( 553343 )
        Agreed. I am free to cancel disney and evangelize their cancelation to as many people as possible. What does not meet the free speech standard is that she is not actually paying for what she said, she is paying for what some people maliciously spun about what she said and that has nothing to do with free speech, that is defamation. Defamation is not only not free speech but codified as such in law.
    • Thanks for sharing your story, and for cancelling Disney+. I read Gina's tweets and failed to see why any normal person would get upset at that. Cancel culture is toxic.
  • The bigger Disney (and Disney+) gets, the more I'm convinced that Disney needs to be broken up and copyright terms drastically reduced.
    Disney is a cancer on culture and on the rest of the economy
  • 100 M idiots, have they made an original movie in the past 50 years or are they retelling the same three stories of rich successful white family, servant blacks/ asians / latinos.
  • by armada ( 553343 )
    I wonder how many of those 100M are free trial accounts. I see an FTC investigation in their future.

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Working...