Thread

1. semiquaver · 1789988297 · focus · HN ↗

   Did anyone actually read the linked wiki in full? It’s basically saying “if there are embedded ads in certain live (likely sports) content we carry you may see them even on an ad-free plan because we don’t have an alternative. Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’”

   I’m all for consumer awareness but I’m begging everyone to stop freaking out over prosaic non-issues like this.

   1. micromacrofoot · 1789991347 · focus · HN ↗

      In every large org, including disney, there are people who will fuck with you to the full extent of the terms and laws if they think it can increase profit... they do not care about quality, experience, or morals. I've fought these people about marketing emails at dozens of orgs as a consultant.

      I guarantee they will eventually use this to show more ads. The goldfish grows to fit its bowl.

      1. GuB-42 · 1789992901 · focus · HN ↗

         That's why I don't really care that much about terms and conditions. Just because they say they can doesn't mean that they will, conversely, the writing can be misleading to anyone who isn't a specialized lawyer, so most people can't really tell what the terms and condition let them do anyways.

         I usually go for reputation and precedent rather then legalese. And in the case of Disney, they had ads in their video tapes and DVDs, so I don't need to read the user agreement to know that it has a good chance to come to Disney+, whatever the legal pathway is.

         1. [deleted] · 1789994172 · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.