curbstickle

fights with corporate partners and regulators have drastic long term impact.

Sinclair was going to do what Sinclair was going to do regardless:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/sinclair-preempt-jimmy-kimmel-live-return-abc-1236377475/

I'll pull one key part of that article:

Nexstar, it should be noted, has a $6 billion-plus deal pending before the FCC to acquire Tegna, an agreement that would make it by far the largest owner of local TV stations in the country. Sinclair has also expressed a desire to pursue M&A, which would also require FCC approval

So the only fight Disney would have is with the FCC chair and an act so blatantly in violation of the constitution republicans commented on it, or immediate damage to the brand.

EDIT: I want to be clear here... You are talking as if "people get pissed but we bring it back a week later and then everyone moves on" wasn't the best possible outcome for them given the circumstances. I think it was, and that was calculated.

Everyone has not moved on though.

People canceled subscriptions, many have been commenting they aren't going back.

You are assuming it was calculated, but from early reports a lot of the executive suite was angry about the quick decision that was made, and how it would be damaging to Disney long term.

This is all hypotheticals now, so I'm not going to do some back and forth on guesswork. But to suggest that it was an issue of fiduciary duty - no, that was not the only choice based on financial impact. The brand is damaged. Subscriptions were on a rise and went into a freefall. Resorts saw a massive amount of cancelations, which will severely impact park revenue as well.

I stand by what I said - that was a severe misunderstanding or misstatement regarding fiduciary duties.

For my lab its testing ideas. More often than not, it involved hardware outside the server. Cloud hosted is not an option for that, or playing with a variety of distributions, testing applications, etc.

vs a nebulous argument towards the impact of moral decision making on profitability.

No, its that vs the clearly expected consumer response, which has a permanent brand impact and a short term subscriber/vacationer/etc impact, not to mention the 2% drop in stocks (an over $4b impact).

Ignoring ethics, this was a bad business decision. The long term impact is obviously not yet known, but the short term impact was rapid and strong.

@Teknevra@lemmy.blahaj.zone sorry if this was a complete derail, feel free to ask me to delete or to report for mods to pull.

I'm admittedly cranky tonight as two different friends in two different states specifically told me about things from over the weekend that have me scared for them, and this "purity test" crap is driving me nuts.

So again, sorry if I derailed things, let me know.

Look at what they do, not what they say.

I'm going to need to end this conversation, because holy fuck JUST LOOK AROUND.

Emboldened hatemongers, mirroring the progression of Nazis, people who are terrified for their lives because the hard right administration is putting a target on them...

But yeah "left and right is meaningless".

I'm not interest in this as some sort of scholastic debate. Real people are at risk and you want to try and insinuate there is no difference between Harris and Trump???

I don't have the capacity tonight to put up with this kind of nonsense.

Enjoy your day.

Disney management has a fiduciary responsibility they cannot ignore.

Sorry, but this is a complete misunderstanding of how this works.

Recognizing that pulling Kimmel's show would result in severe harm to the brand, short term and long term, matches that responsibility as well. Shareholders can even make the decision to claim the board (and specifically Iger) were in violation of their duties with this decision. The blowback was obvious and expected.

They absolutely are at fault.

There isn't much to it. Its up here:

https://files.catbox.moe/k8gx1m.mp4

Thats... Just fucking devastating.

I hate this. I hate this so much.

That is what is called "pushing to the left".

Not when those further left lose to the right. Not when not being perfectly whatever isn't good enough to get voted for.

Pushing for more left policy after defeating the right wing is a move to the left. A loss to the right doesnt move a single needle anywhere left.

How is "this person actively harms trans people under the slightest pressure" a "win" for trans people?

Compared to being afraid and leaving their home of over a decade, only to still be afraid and now desperate to find a way out of the country?

Yeah, to me that would have been a win.

Instead we have this bullshit.

Oh, I see.

She's at fault for long standing policies created before she got into a position that still couldn't change those policies, which she worked to change by discussing with those who could so others didnt have to have the same experience.

My mistake. Thanks for clarifying.

Edit: for the record, I find it frustrating that we can't move to the left at all because its never enough for some people. There is always some purity test being failed, always some perfection that must somehow magically be achieved.

And then I end up with friends and family fearing for their lives here because the right is fine with a little at a time towards fascism, but everything on the left is divided into their little camps of absolutist approach to everything.

Its so damn frustrating. Ffs get every win you can, even the little ones.

Just so I make sure I understand, is this about the CA DOC policies that were being enforced? Because iirc, those were not her policies, but were her job to enforce at direction, and not something there was discretion with. And then worked to change that policy with the DOC. Was there something else?

Sweet milky cheeses

"America did it and we have 'antifa cells' interrupting meetings here"?

Is ignorance and stupidity contagious? It feels that way. I hope the rest of the world quarantines us for their own safety.