Thinking of canceling Disney+? You’re not alone—after Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, so many people rushed to quit that the cancellation page itself started crashing.
ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! on September 17 after the late-night host commented on the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. His monologue suggested Trump supporters were trying to reframe the shooter’s political ties, which drew backlash from the FCC and major ABC affiliates. ABC replaced the program with reruns, sparking accusations of censorship and igniting a boycott campaign against Disney, its parent company.
Overwhelming public reaction
The suspension triggered strong responses across social media and beyond. Hashtags like #CancelDisneyPlus and #CancelHulu trended as users shared screenshots of their canceled subscriptions.
Lawmakers, unions, and advocacy groups joined the conversation, framing the move as an attack on free expression rather than a programming choice.
“The page … keeps crashing”
With cancellations surging, many subscribers reported technical issues. On Reddit’s r/Fauxmoi, one post read, “The page to cancel your Hulu/Disney+ subscription keeps crashing.”
Another added, “Already cancelled my Disney subscription,” while others said they faced looping logins and stalled forms. These firsthand accounts suggest Disney’s systems struggled under the unusual traffic volume.
Affiliate pressure and scheduling changes
Affiliate owners played a direct role in the fallout. Sinclair announced it would air a Charlie Kirk tribute special during Kimmel’s slot and demanded an apology, while Nexstar also refused to broadcast new episodes.
Some local stations filled the timeslot with local news or alternative programming instead of reruns, widening the impact beyond one network show.
Why people are canceling
For many, the suspension represents a larger issue. Critics argue Disney and ABC bowed to political pressure at the expense of free speech.
A Reddit user summed up the sentiment: “If they don’t apologize to high heavens to him, we all need to continue to boycott all Disney & ABC services, including Hulu.” Posts like this echo the frustration fueling subscription losses.
Next steps for subscribers and Disney
If you want to cancel, try clearing cookies, switching browsers, or using Disney’s live chat for confirmation if the cancellation flow freezes. Always keep screenshots of your request and watch billing cycles to confirm the change processed.
For Disney, the challenge is bigger: balancing affiliate demands, political scrutiny, and customer trust while subscription churn becomes public proof of consumer backlash.
The bottom line
What began as a late-night monologue has escalated into a company-wide flashpoint. Disney now faces mounting cancellations, technical strain on its cancellation page, and reputational fallout tied to questions of censorship and free speech.
As one Reddit user noted, “I also cancelled my Disney+ today after deciding there is no way for me to return.” Whether Disney reinstates Kimmel or holds the line, the decision will shape not just its brand but its subscriber base moving forward.
Read the original article
Comments
What about what he said was so controversial? It seems entirely in line with everything else I’ve seen happen on these kinds of shows.
It wasn't controversial, but this is literally the textbook Manufacturing Consent model. The small number of people in positions of power at the network are either overtly aligned with the president that he just talked bad about, or want to stay or get on the president's good side. He doesn't even need to pick up the phone or post anything on social media, they know what they need to do.
By digitaltrees 2025-09-206:413 reply To be fair to the executives. The main regulator that could essentially issue the corporate death penalty, the FCC chairman that can revoke their license to operate, literally said “we can do this the easy way or the hard way”. That’s a Dirty Harry or goodfellas quote. So much for “government shouldn’t pick winners and losers in the economy”.
Alternatively, perhaps it is the duty of the executives to defend their company, its viewers and employees, when confronted with unlawful and unreasonable government demands.
By teaearlgraycold 2025-09-2018:211 reply If only they had a little money to fight back with.
By DengistKhan 2025-09-2018:48 Unfortunately, Disney is just a small bean startup, there's basically no way they would be able to hire good enough lawyers and weather the storm.
By digitaltrees 2025-09-212:43 I totally agree with this but look at that statement. A company needs to fight the full force of the federal government, with an executive that has demonstrated no respect for the rule of law. That is insane. Every one needs to fight back but the federal government can stay wrong longer than you can stay solvent.
You really don't have to be fair to the executives. The FCC absolutely can't do shit about Jimmy Kimmel, and would lose the procedure if it ever came to it. Instead, they immediately bent the knee and decided that loyalty to the nascent fascist regime was more important that standing up against the most clear cut and unjustifiable attack to free speech in a long time.
FCC can decide to not let the $6.2 billion Nexstar acquisition go through. Kimmel is just part of the bribe
By _DeadFred_ 2025-09-210:291 reply The people in charge of approval at the FCC are on this public comments submission page:
By nerdponx 2025-09-2113:22 Remember when the FCC botted their own comment page in order to make it look like the public was split and ultimately against a policy change that the public is clearly in favor of?
Funny how they only did that under President Trump, but Biden's FCC never did that.
By _DeadFred_ 2025-09-2020:22 'We find it's fine to waive the rule that limits large media company mergers in order to protect speech because this Nexstar merger will in no way impact speech in the US'. -The FCC in the coming months
Also because some people don't seem to know this, the government can't murder a man even if he was already dying of cancer.
By digitaltrees 2025-09-212:44 I totally agreed with you. But mafia tactics work because they are terrifying. My point was this is unprecedented in American history and people are scared.
By kevin_thibedeau 2025-09-202:38 It's more that ABC/Disney is beholden to two right-leaning broadcasters who are colluding with threats to assist in their prohibited merger that will be approved now because they just gave the felon a successful hand job. There is no indication that the ABC execs are anything more than spineless, unprincipled cowards who cave in a light breeze.
I think most commenters are missing that a local broadcaster monopoly used their own freedom of association to drop the show
The FCC and Trump merely dogpiled on this
For Disney, they need to court the broadcaster monopoly as a key stakeholder to their revenue, this is all private sector and not a constitutional issue
But when Disney is getting kicked and then an expensive fight with the government looms while their revenue is already threatened and would be expensive to resolve with the government , they buckled
Thats the calculus here
but because they buckled, now their customers are using their own freedom of association to disassociate, hampering Disney’s revenue more from that angle
Press F to Pay Respects
The FCC and Trump "merely" dogpiling on is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution and should be condemned by all.
By yieldcrv 2025-09-2015:52 Ok. “Yes, its scary and authoritarian because it worked.” I said the line guys, happy? Moving on
There is also a protest of Nexstar’s advertisers to get them to avoid Nexstar for cancelling Jimmy Kimmel on their local broadcasters to begin with
By forkeep 2025-09-223:57 [dead]
By christophilus 2025-09-202:151 reply Unless everyone at the top has been fired, ABC and Disney are not remotely aligned with the president. A short while ago, they were boycotted by the right for their slanted debate hosting and woke children’s programming.
By nothrabannosir 2025-09-203:42 Those two could be entirely compatible if it turns out they never gave a hoot about the actual politics, and only did all that stuff because they thought it would get them more favor with viewers, and thereby more money.
I would personally not raise an eyebrow to learn this was the case.
By snapplebobapple 2025-09-2012:12 [flagged]
I suspect they were looking for an excuse to axe and found one. It was all milquetoast, and that entire format of television is dead and the networks know they need to pivot somewhere.
The FCC chair threatening your broadcast license is a pretty good "excuse". There wasn't a public outcry, it was a government outcry along with threats along multiple lines of leverage.
> The FCC chair threatening your broadcast license
That's a clear violation of the First Amendment.
By epistasis 2025-09-201:51 Yep! And he wrote the whole chapter in Project 2025 outlining that he would do exactly this, in advance of taking the job. Who is going to stop him? The Supreme Court? Not likely.
That goes:
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
It doesn't say anything about the FCC not pressuring Disney. They are not congress and are not making a law. I mean I don't agree with it but it's not clear it violates the actual text of the first amendment as written in the constitution. The spirit of it perhaps.
> law ... abridging the freedom of speech
Where does the FCC's authority to do anything come from? Congressional laws. If the FCC is using the laws to abridge free speech it is clearly an unconstitutional action.
It's so weird to see sooooooo many people trying to make up reasons to justify clearly unconstitutional behavior, with extremely motivated reasoning, or perhaps motivated lack of reason. You cited exactly what you are saying doesn't exist! This is baffling behavior.
By tim333 2025-09-218:07 I'm actually motivated the other way - I don't like Trump attacking freedom of speech, along with most others. But I'm skeptical of the legal situation. That said I know little about the laws.
By SoftTalker 2025-09-201:585 reply Not necessarily. Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them.
By digitaltrees 2025-09-206:49 1. You can’t take someone’s property with out due process of law. There has been no showing that they violated that obligation. 2. The constitution has supremacy, so you can’t violate someone’s first amendment rights in service of FCC regulations.
In fact there is a more than credible argument that criticizing and mocking politicians is an essential public service.
By brendoelfrendo 2025-09-204:141 reply That's not what the public interest requirement means. In fact, the FCC's own website says "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views."[0] And anyway, there are specific carve outs for late-night programming.
However the same website they describes the exceptions and limits:
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR...
> Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if:
> The station licensee knew that the information was false
There quite a few other rules, obscenity and violence and such. But they probably got Jimmy on the crime that was just committed + spreading false information.
By SauciestGNU 2025-09-205:131 reply Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. It might be that he's actually a leftist, but Kimmel described Republican behavior and did not actually make any assertions of fact regarding the alleged shooter.
By rdtsc 2025-09-205:44 There was some initial social media reaction portraying this guy as some hard right fascist or whatever, as well. So it wasn't something just Kimmel had come up with. It could be that by the time the show started more evidence came out and he was looking more one way, and Jimmy just had stale info or his staffers were lazy and didn't update him.
> Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own.
Yeah, and the show owners could have fought it. There might be a warning, a lawsuit, maybe a period to comply and make changes etc. But they folded immediately. They probably figured technically they could have explained it, but the PR aspect of it was a losing battle. Here is another part of the country flying flags half staff, and what is ABC's doing? Oh right, explaining away Kimmel's news and jokes and defending him. A lot of these corporations and their leaders can smell the way the wind blows and they really hate it when the wind blows away their profits, so they just react accordingly.
By brendoelfrendo 2025-09-205:221 reply What hoax or false info? Also, Kimmel isn't a journalist or news reporter and his show isn't broadcast journalism. As far as obscenity rules, the rules don't necessarily apply between 10pm and 6am; "obscene" material is not allowed at any time of day, but "indecent" material is allowed on late-night television. These are terms that have specific meaning in the context of the law, and what Kimmel said would in no way rise to the level of obscene.
So why did the network fold so quickly? It's a simple enough explanation "we not journalists, these are all made up jokes and parodies, we send our condolences to the family ... etc".
They folded because they knew how the statement was perceived. Here is half the country flying flags half staff and ABC owners are defending Kimmel. They are worried about views and profits and when that is threatened everything goes out of the window.
Paradoxically, I think Kimmel is all of the sudden on top again, just due to the controversy. The younger crowd who don't sit and watch ABC, might have just learned about this Kimmel guy the first time. May be another network will pick him up, it could be a win for him overall.
No, they folded because the United States Federal government threatened them. That fact is the only thing that should matter in this discussion. This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment by the government against protected speech (no matter how many people find that protected speech distasteful).
By rdtsc 2025-09-2015:44 > No, they folded because the United States Federal government threatened them.
Yes because they control the FCC and FCC has rules in regards to the content of broadcasts. Kimmel is free to say anything he wants on his own website or platform and such, but as soon as it's on the "air" rules apply.
> This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment by the government against protected speech (no matter how many people find that protected speech distasteful).
If it's that clear the would have fought it. It wasn't clear at all. Moreover it was just a bad PR look instead of saying something like "condolences for the family blah blah" they would be defending Kimmel's phrasing. That's why they dropped like him a hot potato.
> Perception has nothing to do with it, the mafia-threats did
Mafia threats work precisely because of perception. The perception of the power is the power. If everyone caves, and can't fight back, the mafia gets stronger.
By nobody9999 2025-09-216:47 >Mafia threats work precisely because of perception. The perception of the power is the power. If everyone caves, and can't fight back, the mafia gets stronger.
The US government is constrained by the Constitution. It is legally barred from acting like a mafia.
Don't try to normalize that. While you may think you're safe, Mr. Niemoller would like a word.
By JumpCrisscross 2025-09-202:212 reply > Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them.
Necessarily.
Carr threatened to revoke licenses based on the political speech of ABC. That's clearly unconstitutional. Trump followed up by saying licenses should be revoked for criticism of himself. Unitary President cuts both ways.
If this is okay, the next Democrat who's President needs to shut down Fox News and their ilk or be impeached. (From the perspective of fomenting rebellion and generally posing a threat to our republic, Jimmy Kimmel isn't even on the list.)
By yannyu 2025-09-203:27 Fox News is technically cable, as the other poster under you has noted, which is a favored defense for this sort of discussion.
What they ignore is that local Fox affiliate stations who are also licensed by the FCC have a history of aligning with Fox News misinformation campaigns relating to covid, election integrity, Russia and Ukraine, Palestine, etc.
So no, the FCC licensed world is not left leaning, and these local affiliate stations should absolutely be held to the same standard.
Fox news doesn't have a broadcast license. ABC does. As with redistricting, democrats are limited because things are already biased in their favor. Broadcast networks are all center-left at this point, if not then show me one major broadcaster that is center right. Democrats basically have nobody to go after.
To your point, The Democrats, when back in power, could extend licensing issues into cableTV, etc... and attempt to fire Fox or Newsmax commentators... I would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena.
I just think both sides do it, although on this forum it seems to trigger mostly the left side.
By kenjackson 2025-09-203:431 reply Fox News doesn’t have a broadcast license but Fox Broadcasting does. If people are doing this sort of extortion, it wouldn’t be a leap to see the whole Fox corporation in the crosshairs. This is all just a terrible precedent for what the future holds.
By SauciestGNU 2025-09-205:12 Except non-NewsCorp Fox assets were bought by none other than Disney! It's a gordian knot of monopolistic corruption!
By JumpCrisscross 2025-09-203:42 > would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena
Not comparable. That said, I agree—if this precedent stands, there should be personal liability for Newsmax commenters under a future administration. (And, of course, they should be barred from federal property.)
One would also go after the online streaming companies to delist their content. Google and Meta are constantly under antitrust controlled. TikTok is government owned. And you could start knocking on X with its money-transfer ambitions and Elon’s robotaxi approvals (to say nothing of federal contracts).
By akerl_ 2025-09-204:05 Which restriction applied here?
As it turns out the government can dictate how the broadcast frequencies are used, including dictate things about the content. The company could have switched to online only and continued the show. Heck, they should have called uncle sam's bluff maybe and see what happened.
They are not sending Jimmy to gulag or arresting him. Jimmy can still continue his show just maybe on his own youtube channel or his own online platform or something.
By pseudalopex 2025-09-203:461 reply "[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors"[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_...
The executive branch controls the FCC which controls broadcasting licenses. Specifically broadcast journalism over the air is controlled
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR...
Note:
> Nevertheless, there are two issues related to broadcast journalism that are subject to Commission regulation: hoaxes and news distortion. Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if [...] The station licensee knew that the information was false.
All Jimmy had to do, it seems, was to say "this is all a made up joke" and move on, instead of presenting whatever he was saying as information or news.
> If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction and the disclaimer is presented in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm.
> However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene.
Again, Jimmy didn't get sent to the gulag and didn't go to jail. He can still run a show on his own platform or a youtube channel or maybe Netflix will sign him up. Heck, after this, I'd say he would easily triple his view numbers if anything.
The US government threatened a private company in an attempt to suppress speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment from government interference. This is a violation of the US Constitution. Full stop.
By rdtsc 2025-09-2016:04 > This is a violation of the US Constitution. Full stop
I needs a comma, or semicolon at least.
> The US government threatened a private company
Threatened with what, imprisonment, death? They threatened to pull the FCC license. It turns out broadcast content is controlled by the government. It always has been. Kimmel can and should continue saying what he was saying on his own website or platform or whatever.
> This is a violation of the US Constitution.
Ok, let's say it's a clear cut violation, with a full stop, an open and shut case. ABC can file a lawsuit, it's an easy win isn't then? And, plus they get to show how they fought and won over fascism. Why did they fold so quickly then?
> That’s a lotta words to justify complete bs
If that's the rebuttal, I'll take it as an acknowledgement that's it's right.
If that's the case, the next Democrat is definitely ending right wing talk radio.
By jaybrendansmith 2025-09-2012:30 And what makes you think we will continue to have elections? This Project 25 is clearly a plan to destroy our Republic and subject us all to minority Christo-Fascist rule. We need to wake up and recognize what we are up against, or it is guaranteed to happen here.
Yeah that is definitely on the table, we'll see what happens.
Here, interestingly, just a threat was enough. I wonder why the owners didn't want to fight it at all? The speed with with they folded was very telling. As others mentioned, I suspect if they decided they just didn't want to keep paying Kimmel for the show. He was making somewhere around $15m/year or something they saw a chance to say "goodbye".
IANAL but this doesn’t get them out of their contract though. They could “say ‘goodbye’” anytime they wanted and continue paying the rest of the contract.
They are submitting to what they view as either an existential threat, or the opportunity to make millions in the merger they want the FCC chair to approve.
By rdtsc 2025-09-2018:28 It depends on what the contract says. Each side has various clauses to protect their interests, like say if Kimmel starting showing porn on his show, now the station risks FCC license they can drop him. I imagine there was something.
Technically I think they could have fought, could have argued he was just describing the behavior of maga people or that his shows is all made up parody and everyone should know it, etc. However it would have been a losing PR battle even if the FCC lost eventually in court.
By 28304283409234 2025-09-207:46 What on earth makes you think there will be a next Democrat?
It’s actually a terrible excuse as the backlash is demonstrating. Even if they were about to axe the show all along it would have been a good idea to delay that to avoid the appearance they were caving to government pressure.
> It’s actually a terrible excuse as the backlash is demonstrating. Even if they were about to axe the show all along it would have been a good idea to delay that to avoid the appearance they were caving to government pressure.
But that meant having to defend making up stuff about a murder and comment on the crime even as the others are flying flags half staff. Quickly showing they caved to government's pressure was exactly the look they wanted.
And let's say fought back, who would that be for? They younger viewers are not sitting at home watching TV and cheering Jimmy on. Many don't even know who Jimmy is; they just learned this week because it's on social media. So putting some kind of a defense and turning it into a battle rather than caving would have been the worse of the two choices they had.
> But that meant having to defend making up stuff about a murder
What was Kimmel making up?
The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family?
The fact that Kirk openly advocated for gun violence?
Please do tell us exactly what was being "made up," here.
> The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family?
He implied it was trump maga head or some kind. Not just implied, he made it sound like it's a sure thing. Moreover, it applied to a crime that was just committed. When FCC threatened them ABC knew they couldn't appeal or fight. It wasn't worth it, it would have been a PR disaster.
This guy is nothing like a maga whatever, he as trans girlfriend, leftist views, parents said that much (they are the ones who turned him even), wrote "Bella ciao" on bullets and "catch, fascist" and most importantly heshoots a trump-loving personality like Kirk. How did Kimmel arrive at him being some trump fan, I don't see it. That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime, good enough for FCC to threaten him and good enough for ABC to realize they'll be in a losing game defending him.
> That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime
Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee, Nancy Mace et al also being fired for spreading misinformation about politically-motivated killings. Also waiting for Trump’s public address denouncing political violence against MN Rep. Melissa Hortman.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. It's specific corner case of FCC licensing. ABC didn't have to cancel Jimmy and could have called FCC's bluff and tried to file a lawsuit based on 1st Amendment. But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing.
> Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee also being fired for spreading misinformation about a politically-motivated killing.
It's going to happen once the democrats are in power and fox or whatever channel broadcast lie and it's related to a crime. I don't see it happening in congress though.
> MN Rep. Melissa Hortman.
Sadly I don't know if anyone there knows who Hortman is.
> It's specific corner case of FCC licensing.
No, it's not.
It's fascism punishing those who don't bend the knee.
FCC licensing is only the specific excuse they're using this time.
> But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing.
Boo fucking hoo?
It's a blatant First Amendment violation. They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it."
> Boo fucking hoo?
I think that's exactly the look they didn't want.
> They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it."
Not when it comes to broadcasting and FCC. They control the frequencies/channels allocated so they have some control about the speech there.
They should have fought it and called their bluff, it's exactly the "boo fucking hoo" look ABC didn't want. Who would they be grandstanding for? Younger generation doesn't sit at home watching ABC, there is nobody they'd be impressing with their fight. They should have done it on principle, but their money and ratings would be going down and these companies are not ideological unless they can profit from it. So the folded faster than a broken lawn chair.
By ThrowMeAway1618 2025-09-217:001 reply >Not when it comes to broadcasting and FCC. They control the frequencies/channels allocated so they have some control about the speech there.
Where did you get your law degree? Email your ConLaw professor and ask them about it.
Because there's hundreds of years of precedent protecting political speech, whether true or not, regardless of the platform (including broadcast media). This is a blatant attempt to silence political speech the current regime doesn't like -- it was literally "cancel this guy or we'll make things hard on you."
They didn't even try to couch it in the terms you're using to defend this entirely authoritarian attempt to chill free speech. Why are you being an apologist for these folks? Or do you support having a lawless government?
By rdtsc 2025-09-2112:51 > This is a blatant attempt to silence political speech the current regime doesn't like -- it was literally "cancel this guy or we'll make things hard on you."
If they thought it was so easy to defend and so obvious why did they buckle so quickly?
> They didn't even try to couch it in the terms you're using to defend this entirely authoritarian attempt to chill free speech
What did they couch it as?
> ABC didn't have to cancel Jimmy and could have called FCC's bluff and tried to file a lawsuit based on 1st Amendment.
I feel like the executives have a civic duty to have resisted, at least for a few days. Caving so quickly weakened the de facto press freedoms. Maybe Kimmel would be willing to soften it or at least not dig in. New evidence was coming out daily, changing the narrative, and he could use that as an excuse. I think the PR hit of caving is worse than you give it credit. I can believe they want very valuable near-term favors from the FCC or their MAGA-aligned affiliates, more than I can believe they thought there was no better PR way out.
> Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. It's specific corner case of FCC licensing.
I'm not saying the FCC should take action against Mike Lee and Nancy Mace. I'm saying Congress should expel or censure them, if this was really about how public figures shouldn't be "spreading misinformation related to a crime" to the public, if it was about using all available legal weight to hold them accountable if they do. (If anyone's wondering, shortly after MN Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, Mike Lee tweeted an implication that the killer was "Marxist" and a pun about the governor of the state. Of course he had no evidence, and now, we know it's unlikely given that suspect is a Trump supporter. Nancy Mace made anti-trans allegations about Kirk's killer when virtually nothing was known.)
Congress won't, both because of partisan hypocrisy, and like you noted, sadly, hardly anyone cares about a state-level elected official compared to a famous podcaster.
(Admittedly their comments are very tame compared to the acts that have previously resulted in congressional expulsion. And so were Kimmel’s. But if “protecting the public” angle is all they have on Kimmel, I’m pointing out the other logical conclusions of their argument.)
It's nice to see a few, such as Ted Cruz, calling out the FCC acting like Trump's mafia.
By rdtsc 2025-09-212:34 > I feel like the executives have a civic duty to have resisted, at least for a few days. Caving so quickly weakened the de facto press freedoms.
Exactly, at least some kind of public rebuff or just saying Kimmel's show is not news and journalism, he is just reflecting the social media trends as parodies and jokes. Now it just looks like FCC can come shut down anyone they want.
> If anyone's wondering, shortly after MN Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, Mike Lee tweeted an implication that the killer was "Marxist" and a pun about the governor of the state. Of course he had no evidence, and now, we know it's unlikely given that suspect is a Trump supporter.
Yeah, it's rules for some but not others.
> It's nice to see a few, such as Ted Cruz, calling out the FCC acting like Trump's mafia.
Yeah, I mean, this is supposed to be a classic conservative talking point so it's nice to see some dissent, even from Cruz.
I find it hard to take that threat seriously. There would be blood on the street - real blood - americans won't stand for it. (Some will of course but enough would not that the fcc would blink)
FCC chair literally said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" the easy way being ABC cancelling it, the hard way being pulling the license.
And if you wait for the license to be pulled as your red line, you misunderstand how this works. This is an actual threat, the kind of thing that mobsters get RICO charges for. The threat has done its work and served the purposes of the administration. The crime has already taken place. The mobster says "but he agreed to pay the protection money and nobody ever actually broke his kneecaps"
"These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel,” said Carr, a Trump appointee, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/article/jimmy-kimmel-liv...
Anyone can say anything. Follow through and abc can just ignore the order and tell everyone watching what is happening. They have the power of the pen and will get people running to their congressman.
they blinked so we will never know.
By ethbr1 2025-09-202:43 > Anyone can say anything.
Not as the federal government, because it explicitly lacks the freedom of speech citizens are ensured by the Constitution.
And absent a first amendment claim, the best defense they can come up with would be 'We were joking.'
Which, given the well-cited history of coercion by this administration (both in verbalized plans and actions), would be a hard defense to make.
By epistasis 2025-09-202:30 Saying that they blinked seems to be an admission that it was a threat with impact, no?
What is there to blink about if it was not a threat?
If I walk up to someone with a gun and wave the gun around and demand they give me their money or I'll shoot them, it does not matter if I was "serious" or not about the threat. If I tell a jury that I wouldn't have actually ever have shot the person, and that they just decided to give me their money because they didn't really need it so much, I'm not sure any jury would agree, unless I was a hell of a salesman.
By Cheer2171 2025-09-204:48 > Anyone can say anything.
This is illegal: "Nice business you've got here," the police officer says. "Shame that crime is on the rise. And we don't have as many officers to patrol. But give a donation and we'll take care of you. Don't and we'll stop answering your 911 calls."
Now replace with "We heard what you said about the mayor. Apologize or we'll stop answering your 911 calls."
You seem to be saying that what happened is fine because it never actually got to a truly unconstitutional or get-in-the-streets worthy level of censorship. You seem to be saying if they actually revoked the license, that would be the red line. But because they never did, no harm, no foul.
What we are saying is that just by making the threat, the censorship has full and complete effect. They don't need to revoke the license to use the power of the government to influence constitutionalally protected speech. They just need to threaten.
By throw0101a 2025-09-2011:21 > It is not fine. I'm saying they should have had the guts to fight
Yes they should have. But ideally we should live in a society that guts aren't necessary because threats are not made, especially from the government.
It's the second part that's the everyone is really worried about.
By BoiledCabbage 2025-09-202:26 > I find it hard to take that threat seriously.
Based on everything that has gone one that seems to me at least very naive. There was practically a textbook length document outlining what the administrstion planned to do if they got in power and they are going step by step through it.
The president said there are 4 comedians (who make fun of him) that he wants to get off the air. After this event he posted something along the lines of "2 down, 2 to go." Followed by "Why don't you just force the other two out now?".
There was nothing wrong about what was said - they just already have a plan and pick any small item to claim is the cause.
For example they want to defund left leaning non profits and think tanks. They don't have a reason to. But now they are trying to claim they motivated the Kirk killing - not because they think it did, but because it's what is already their plan.
People still thinking they are being objectives or that there are "norms" left, in my opinion haven't been paying attention.
By epistasis 2025-09-201:52 The threat was taken seriously.
I don't believe you yet that Americans won't stand for it. There have been so many red lines crossed that most Americans don't even know what's going on.
By brendoelfrendo 2025-09-205:26 Americans are standing for it. There's a lot of "I'm a free speech absolutist, but..." coming out of the American right-wing right now.
By infinite8s 2025-09-202:36 Would you have gone to the streets for it?
By rdtsc 2025-09-204:13 [flagged]
By fakeBeerDrinker 2025-09-201:553 reply He was last averaging 129K viewers per episode in the 18-49 demographic, I'd say that is a far better "excuse" than a threat from the FCC. As if DIS doesn't have a legion of attorneys. Give me a break.
By vlovich123 2025-09-202:121 reply I really don’t understand this argument that he wasn’t popular as if that’s at all relevant. Aside from the cost of putting the legion of attorneys protecting a show that’s not bringing enough revenue and the fact, there’s a broader risk with the Nexstar merger that requires explicit government approval that the FCC also threatened.
More importantly, his viewership didn’t suddenly change and the cancellation came about pretty clearly as a result of the FCC threat and not any business decision the company would have made otherwise. Not a lawyer but I would think that Kimmel has a 1a lawsuit he could bring against DIS and the government.
By fakeBeerDrinker 2025-09-202:23 [flagged]
By genghisjahn 2025-09-202:071 reply He was last averaging 220K in 18-49 demographic. That beat out Colbert (barely) and trounced Fallon.
https://latenighter.com/news/ratings/late-night-tv-ratings-q...
By fakeBeerDrinker 2025-09-202:16 [dead]
By epistasis 2025-09-202:42 If he was averaging suppoosedly bad numbers, why wasn't he fired before? Just a pure coincidence?
I'm not sure if you think people are extremely gullible, because one would have to be in order to buy that line.
If there's a threat going on, and an another excuse the threatened can blame, the threat is no less potent.
By 1oooqooq 2025-09-202:09 having experience with a dictatorship first hand, all a censor does is veto milquetoast stuff.
By esalman 2025-09-206:27 > networks know they need to pivot somewhere.
Please don't say the pivot is podcasts.
>It was all milquetoast,
???
It was a very obvious dig at the president. There's still not good justification for the government to step in, but claiming it's "milquetoast" is baffling.
By derefr 2025-09-201:50 Digs directed at the President or the administration are and always have been well within the Overton window in American journalism, and previous Presidents and administrations have just seen them as a fact of life and brushed them off.
Thus “milquetoast”: an implication that any reaction to this is, objectively, an overreaction.
That the current President is a habitual over-reactor does not change that fact. It just means that you can paradoxically be taking a heterodox / outré stance by saying objectively milquetoast things.
By add-sub-mul-div 2025-09-201:511 reply Have you ever seen a late night show? Monologue jokes about the sitting president practically define the format. Every other president going back decades would just man up and take it.
For all his flaws, Nixon had a far thicker skin than Trump and infinitely more integrity.
By cratermoon 2025-09-202:57 Nixon didn't have a thicker skin, he was just more patient and calculating in his revenge. Have we already forgotten his "enemies list"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon%27s_enemies_list
By djohnston 2025-09-201:40 I guess it depends on the sort of media you consume. I’ve seen Destiny saying conservatives need to be afraid of getting shot, and it seems like he’s still alive.
The other people who lost jobs seemed to have said much more direct and offensive remarks than Kimmel as well.
By gamblor956 2025-09-205:46 The owner of the Sinclair Broadcasting group (the company that owns the ABC stations that started this) is a far-right ideologue that has been trying to drag ABC into News Nation territory for the past decade or so.
Nothing Kimmel said was controversial. It was just being used as a false flag to justify other things.
By slumpt_ 2025-09-201:22 It criticized the potus, and threat of his ire is enough to scare corporations in 2025. A fairly concerning development
By autoexec 2025-09-201:40 Honestly, I thought it was way more tame than I'd expect for comedy these days, but it's also been a long time since I watched a late night talk show and traditionally the ones on the old networks tended to have much more mild and lighthearted comedy compared to the more biting/edgy stuff you'd get on cable.
By pacomerh 2025-09-205:06 nothing of what he said was controversial, Im convinced they were just waiting for the next joke to do it anyways.
This is their Horst Wessel moment. It doesn’t matter what actually happened, it’s just the minimal cover to do what they always planned on doing.
Don’t believe me? Trump literally announced his plans months ago to take down these talk show hosts who were so mean to him
Poor guy :(
By pixxel 2025-09-2115:38 [dead]
By belter 2025-09-2118:08 By duxup 2025-09-2021:17 Honestly I think most of the actually angry people only heard "about it". It was a very mild commentary.
The commentary about what Kimmel said was disconnected from what he said, hell the demand he give money seemed more like a criminal shakedown.
I think Trump's statement about going after anyone who has anything negative to say about them, that's the real goal / point. Doesn't even have anything to do with Kirk.
By myvoiceismypass 2025-09-2015:36 It hurt the feelings of the "fuck your feelings" crowd, who started frothing at the mouth before even thinking about what was actually said.
By option 2025-09-201:50 Nothing. But wannabe dictator got offended
By tempodox 2025-09-2014:39 He dared to ridicule uncle Donald and his gang. That’s more than enough.
By sixtyj 2025-09-2010:06 And the second wave of subscription cancellations will be from people who are upset with Disney+ decision… Smart move of executive :) /s
By rdtsc 2025-09-204:07 [flagged]
By thepasswordis 2025-09-201:527 reply [flagged]
By CalChris 2025-09-202:05 Not a business decision. His contract was renewed in 2022 and he had 1.77 million total viewers per night.
https://www.statista.com/chart/35165/us-late-night-show-rati...
By scheeseman486 2025-09-202:034 reply > What Kimmel Said, and the affiliates broadcasted, was a claim that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a “maga” supporter.
This is the actual quote:
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,"
Note that he doesn't say that the shooter was MAGA, only that those within the right wing influencer sphere were desperately trying to characterize the shooter as anything other than one of them. This is unambiguously and factually true.
I swear, media literacy in the united states is in the fucking toilet.
By autoexec 2025-09-202:23 Really, literacy in generally is tanking in the US. In 2024 over half the adults in the country couldn't even read at a sixth grade level! 21% are outright illiterate.
> MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them
> Note that he doesn't say that the shooter was MAGA
then who does the "them" refer to?
By scheeseman486 2025-09-202:21 [flagged]
"My wife wants to go for dinner but I'd like to eat anything other than fish."
Strongly implies the wife in the sentence wants to eat fish.
Anyone with a moderate grasp of English understands what Kimmel was implying.
"Trying to characterize him as anything other than one of them". <- The implication is definitely that he's "one of them".
By scheeseman486 2025-09-202:191 reply That isn't the same and you know it. Kimmel made no direct comment about what the shooter was aligned with, only about what the right wing sphere was attempting to frame them as being. Anyone with a moderate grasp of English should be able to tell the difference.
By nobody9999 2025-09-216:381 reply >That isn't the same and you know it. Kimmel made no direct comment about what the shooter was aligned with, only about what the right wing sphere was attempting to frame them as being. Anyone with a moderate grasp of English should be able to tell the difference.
You're falling into the "trap." Which is that even though you're correct, the way it's being framed is having you defend Kimmel WRT what he did say rather than his right to say all kinds of stuff -- including the stuff they claim he said, but didn't.
Even if Kimmel had said that Robinson was absolutely a MAGAt with ties to literal neo-nazis (the groypers), that's still protected speech.
He didn't go that far (and it may or may not be true), but his right to free expression is what needs to be protected.
While you don't see it that way, the folks with whom you're arguing can come back later and say, "well, scheeseman486 agreed that if Kimmel had called Robinson a MAGA and/or a Nazi, that was a bridge too far. So now that Fallon/whoever said something similar, off to prison for him, because even those baby molesting/eating librul freaks agree!"
Don't fall into that trap. The Federal (and through the 14th Amendment, state and local) government is forbidden from taking action against legal speech, full stop.
Fight against that -- don't let yourself be hemmed in to a corner by those who don't want or care about freedom of expression unless it's theirs.
By scheeseman486 2025-09-233:171 reply I was focused on that one specific argument. I agree that he shouldn't have been taken off the air by the FCC regardless of what he said (unless he explicitly encourages violent action against an individual or group of people be taken, ie illegal speech).
By nobody9999 2025-09-239:52 >I was focused on that one specific argument. I agree that he shouldn't have been taken off the air by the FCC regardless of what he said (unless he explicitly encourages violent action against an individual or group of people be taken, ie illegal speech).
I get that. I wasn't attacking you even a little. Yours was a reasonable and cogent argument.
I'm just pointing out that care should be taken with those who aren't operating in good faith. Because such folks will throw your words back in your face without regard for context or nuance.
Because they care nothing for the truth, just for their own feeling of rightness and will to power whether that be political power or just "pwning the libs."
By JumpCrisscross 2025-09-202:221 reply > he doesn't say that the shooter was MAGA, only that those within the right wing influencer sphere were desperately trying to characterize the shooter as anything other than one of them. This is unambiguously and factually true.
I'll put it in the technically true but ambiguously misinformation category. (Which is on every metric better than what goes on at Fox.)
> technically true but ambiguous
which has been the backbone of satirical and scathing social and political commentary in the western world for 50 years at least.
The Daily Show, The -s30e102- 2025-09-18 Maria Ressa episode with Jon Stewart's monologue and interview went another way, "rolling over" completely into total Trump submission followed by drawing direct comparisons to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte popularist seizing of control of government.
By JumpCrisscross 2025-09-202:43 Yup.
The number of people defending this makes me seriously wonder if we need a two-speed democracy. One class that is given safety. The other who is exposed to dangerous elements like Jimmy Kimmel…
> There’s a relatively narrow rule which prohibits fcc licensed stations from knowing broadcasting false information if it has the possibility of creating civil unrest.
Oh wow, I didn't realize Fox News wasn't FCC-licensed.
> fcc licensed stations
Think your local K[3 letter] west of the Mississippi, W[3 letter] east of the Mississippi*.
Not "Showtime" or "HBO" or "Cartoon Network" or "CNN" or "Fox News" or "MSNBC".
That's why the affiliates started pulling it, because their license is what's on the line, not ABC/Disney directly.
*: Except for KDKA, KYW, WFAA, WBAP, WOAI, WDAY, and WNAX.
By aaronharnly 2025-09-202:311 reply Well, the subset of stations that pulled the show were the ones owned by a (right-wing) company, Nexstar, that has proposed a merger that is up for FCC review. It wasn’t fear of being punished for allowing a “falsehood” on the air, it was pursuit of favorable treatment from a political appointee.
By flutas 2025-09-205:38 Sinclair (38 stations) also pulled it and they own more than Nexstar (28 stations).
FWIW The Hollywood Reporter also is reporting that advertisers started threatening to pull their support as well[0] as several smaller stations.
> Meanwhile, the advertiser calls began to roll in and then the big affiliate conglomerates, Nexstar and Sinclair, threatened to preempt the show. The second source says that the blowback was snowballing enough that had ABC not acted, Kimmel’s show would have been dark in a large swath of the country, even beyond the Sinclair and Nexstar territories (including in the Washington, D.C., metro area).
By novemp 2025-09-2220:44 Thanks for the info! I was being snarky but I actually did misunderstand. Good to know the facts.
By jiggawatts 2025-09-201:583 reply > was a claim that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a “maga” supporter.
I just watched the video.
What he said was that MAGA supporters were too quick to blame anyone but the right, before there was any evidence about the shooter’s identity or political stance.
That’s a fact.
By thepasswordis 2025-09-202:004 reply [flagged]
By autoexec 2025-09-202:07 It's 100% true that MAGA people were being very vocal all over social media trying to characterize him as not being a trump supporter. What part of that do you think was a lie?
By gricardo99 2025-09-202:16 he’s clearly commenting on how the “maga gang” is characterizing the murderer. There’s no statement directly about the murderer.
By scheeseman486 2025-09-202:12 How is it false? It isn't making the claim that the shooter was MAGA, but commenting on the right wing influencer sphere's recurring habit of accusing mass shooters of being associated with any group other than themselves.
By CamperBob2 2025-09-202:03 [flagged]
By fakeBeerDrinker 2025-09-202:041 reply [flagged]
By scheeseman486 2025-09-202:16 > "anything other than one of them" can very easily be interpreted in two ways, one of them leading a person to believe that the adult (not a kid) was somehow "MAGA"
Anything can be interpreted in any way you want as long as you're arguing in bad faith
> at the very least, the situation as tense as it was (is?), Jimmy could have chosen to leave it alone for a bit - why say that MAGA is trying to "score political points" at this time? Why not consider that many people are genuinely grieving and upset?
lmao, no one, right wing influencers nor the government, is doing this.
> ABC fired his butt, not the FCC or anyone else. A sternly worded message from the FCC chairman doesn't make a company like DIS fire someone unless it is convenient for DIS. That's a fact.
It isn't "a fact". If a mob goon threatens action on an employer unless that employer punishes an employee, who the hell do you think is actually responsible?
By sapphicsnail 2025-09-202:02 Do you not think the decision was political?
He never said he was a MAGA supporter but that he was being claimed to be not “one of them”. Given that the shooter came from a conservative family in a conservative town and attended trade school and spent his time gaming, I think it’s reasonable to say that he was a product of the right wing milieu, and not a product of left wing indoctrination as the right alleges.
By siliconc0w 2025-09-202:13 He also shot the guy with his Dad's Dad's gun. It turns out that if you keep a gun around, it'll eventually be used to shoot someone.
By thepasswordis 2025-09-202:091 reply The fact that you believe this is the exact reasoning behind trying to prevent things like what Jimmy Kimmel did here.
It could not be more cut and dry than this. In fact it is so cut and dry that a conspiracy theory on both the left and the right is that the text messages demonstrating his political motivations aren’t genuine.
By ummonk 2025-09-202:13 Are you asserting that he followed left wing influencers or read left wing books or attended left wing classes or somehow got his indoctrination from left wing sources?
There isn’t any evidence of that - there is only evidence that he hated the right wing (and to the contrary there is obvious evidence he came from a right wing milieu - just take a look at his parents). Simply hating a side doesn’t mean you have been indoctrinated by the other side - just look at people who left fundamentalist religious sects.
By tcn33 2025-09-202:02 what a load of bullshit.
To those that are interpreting his comments in a certain way, the implication that Robinson is maga is highly offensive and textbook "misinformation".
Edit: there's clearly several ways to interpret what he said. I'm not making any kind of argument here, just answering op's question.
By thrance 2025-09-2014:54 So when a talk show host vaguely on the left implies something that might not be true it is ground enough to disregard the fucking first amendment and use the power of the state to censor him. But when the entire GOP, including the president, all fabricate obvious lies about the shooter being successively trans, then antifa and then a radical leftist, it's fine. The double standards are fucking crazy.
You don't exactly need to be MAGA to think that Kimmel's remarks were incorrect. From the economist:
>After the assassination Jimmy Kimmel, a comedian on abc, suggested erroneously that Kirk had been killed by a maga fan. Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcasters, threatened consequences: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Within hours abc took Mr Kimmel off the air indefinitely. Mr Carr then said all broadcasters should ease up on the “progressive foie gras”.
You can check the other articles in the same issue and see they're not exactly cheerleaders for the Trump administration.
That said, the FTC shouldn't be in the business of strongarming critics, even if they're wrong.
By siliconc0w 2025-09-201:442 reply The subject of the sentence was "the MAGA gang" - and it's true that they (and the president himself) were the ones desperately declaring right after the assassination before we had any information that shooter was a radical leftist. So for me it's a fair statement and really only disinformation if you purposely distort the sentence.
The second part of what he said is also a true statement, that they're using this tragic event to score political points and go after their political opponents.
By slowmovintarget 2025-09-203:321 reply Well, the kid did turn out to have ties to a radical leftist organization. He spent an awful lot of time on Antifa discord servers and, according to his acquaintances and friends, had frequent arguments with his conservative parents over politics. You think they were arguing about who voted Republican harder?
The president and co making such claims based on little or no evidence doesn't become OK just because some is turned up later.
By slowmovintarget 2025-09-205:351 reply Early, and correct, claims were made based on the inscriptions found on the bullets and shell casings, IIRC.
By crtasm 2025-09-2012:07 People certainly jumped to conslusions about them and extrapolated from there.
You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is:
>The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it
Kimmel didn't explicitly make the accusation that the killer was MAGA, but the use of the wording "desperately trying to imply ... as anything other than one of them" definitely gives that impression. I mean, why else would they be "desperately" trying to? If an attempt was made on Bernie or AOC I wouldn't characterize leftists prematurely blaming it on the right as "desperately". It's just the most logical inference. The "killer was right wing" narrative was also being pushed in some left leaning circles, so it's not exactly outlandish either.
By siliconc0w 2025-09-202:02 I disagree - my read is that he is saying the MAGA gang was trying to exploit the tragedy and desperately point fingers, which I think is accurate.
By nobody9999 2025-09-217:15 >You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is:
He did not. But even if he did, so what?
Does either interpretation make his comment somehow illegal and deserving of government threats to retaliate against folks unless Kimmel was punished?
That's not a rhetorical question.
IMNSHO, you're focusing on the wrong thing here. What difference does it make what legal speech was used? The problem is that the government is trying to silence the critics of those currently in power. And at least in the US, the government isn't allowed to do that -- whether they're critics of the current administration or not.
If you don't decry that, it could be you and yours next. You've been warned.
By kashunstva 2025-09-201:491 reply Now fact-check Fox News.
Let’s just say that the alleged shooter’s political philosophies are likely complex and are yet to be fully understood.
>Now fact-check Fox News.
Did you miss the second part of my comment? Even if Kimmel was in the wrong he shouldn't be taken off the air. I'm just pointing out why Trump might be upset. It's a reason, not necessarily a good reason.
>Let’s just say that the alleged shooter’s political philosophies are likely complex and are yet to be fully understood
By most accounts it's safe to say he's left leaning. You don't have to be a card carrying DSA member or have your ideology fully align with the Democrats platform to earn that label.
By robertjpayne 2025-09-202:24 You could also just say he was a unaffiliated lunatic who was sick of Kirk's rhetoric and hate speech and took it into his own hands.
ummm First amendment? Its not the first time misinformation has been broadcasted on air, why does the FCC need to get involved in this one. Would they have gotten involved if the implication was that he was a liberal?
They asked what was controversial about what he said, not whether the FCC's actions were constitutional.
By nobody9999 2025-09-217:19 >They asked what was controversial about what he said, not whether the FCC's actions were constitutional.
The former is (for some at least) interesting. The latter is actually consequential. I'm concerned about the latter.
The former, whether I agree or not, is about legal, protected political speech.
By zoom6628 2025-09-201:43 I don't see the FCC cancelling news shows on which Trump lies. Double standards driven by politics and why the govt orgs need career staff and not political players. Rule of Law anyone?
By rogerrogerr 2025-09-201:327 reply Not so much offensive, as utterly puzzling given the information we had on him by Monday night.
Not a fan of Trump or Jimmy, and I don’t think this is a proportional or good response. I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air. I also don’t understand why he left that little dig in his monologue.
By Terr_ 2025-09-201:36 Which information? The completely unverified stuff based on "a reconstruction" or "aggressive interview posture" from the same FBI led by the guy currently contradicting himself and telling lies in front of Congress?
This Administration was basically founded on making strident claims on TV which turned out to be lies they couldn't back up in a court of law.
> I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air.
Have you not been paying attention to where rhetoric in this country has gone in the past 8 months? The first amendment is dead, the great leader is publically calling for his critics to lose their broadcast licenses, and the new SOP is for the government to squeeze the shit out of anyone who doesn't toe the line. (Which is an ever-shrinking group of people.)
Be it with SLAPP suits, or by holding merger approvals, or by just threatening witch-hunts.
This is what 48% of the electorate wanted, and, well, it's what they've delivered.
---
Meanwhile, in Fox land, Brian Kilmeade was publically calling for mass-murder of the mentally ill the other day. For some strange reason, neither Trump nor the FCC, nor all the people outraged about political violence are making a peep about that.
By kashunstva 2025-09-201:461 reply > I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air.
Very little was needed. The U.S. president had already ominously threatened Kimmel and other late night hosts the day after Colbert was canceled, weeks before the shooting.
I thought Kimmel was hilarious; but as they say, there’s no accounting for taste.
The most ridiculous thing about this is that the world doesn’t cleave neatly into “radical left lunatics” and the righteous real Americans. I still can’t tell what the murderer was. Whatever that was, he acted on his own impulses - ones that are not broadly celebrated, irrespective of claims to the contrary.
Of all the takes on his motivations I've seen the most on point comes from an Australian of Robinson's generation ..
Death by shitpost: Why modern media is so ill-equiped to diagnose Tyler Robinson
https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/19/tyler-robinson-alleged-...
https://archive.md/Lil0U#selection-941.0-941.80
Watching the US media struggling to cleave this into either left OR right as if the world is binary is, as you noted, ridiculous.
By bitlax 2025-09-2212:55 There's just absolutely no doubt that Tyler Robinson is a deranged leftist. He was not apolitical. None of the evidence contradicts the fact that he is a leftist. Much of the evidence contradicts the protrayal of him as a right-winger.
By yibg 2025-09-201:39 Doesn't seem that outlandish given the president of the united states said it was a extreme left lunatic before this.
By RickJWagner 2025-09-201:401 reply Kimmels show was expensive, Kimmel has baggage ( a history of racist comedy, including blackface ). This was a convenient opportunity to chop dead wood.
By willmarch 2025-09-2011:30 After pressure from the federal government which is a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.
By bitlax 2025-09-202:44 It's his shtick!
By aisengard 2025-09-201:45 As opposed to the implication that Robinson is somehow a leftwing activist, confidently claimed by every GOP politician from coast to coast?
Also, even if it were, as you say, "misinformation", that is now somehow taboo on television? A sacred line none must dare cross?
By al_borland 2025-09-202:571 reply He said the guy who shot Charlie Kirk was MAGA, which isn’t true, according to the information that has come out from those actually working on the case in the various press conferences, and from the evidence that’s been made public.
It wasn’t meaningful to the joke he was looking to set up, it was just misinformation for misinformation’s sake. At least it came off that way.
Add to that high emotions from people coping with a murder, and there you have it.
By superultra 2025-09-203:072 reply He did not say that the kid was MAGA, or at least not exactly. Here’s all he said about it:
> We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
> In between the finger pointing there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level you can see how hard the President is taking this.
He then played a clip where a reporter asked Trump how he was doing. Trump said good and immediately started talking about his new ballroom.
What about any of that is misinformation? Given how they were certain the shooter was trans because he used arrows on the bullet - which were helldiver 2 codes - it did seem like people were trying to make it seem like the kid wasn’t MAGA.
Turns out the kid is neither, or both, and was just terminally online, which none of us want to admit is the real problem because we’re all also terminally online.
By al_borland 2025-09-203:523 reply > with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them
Anyone hearing this would take away that Tyler was maga, would they not? It heavily implies that he is maga, and that’s why the maga gang is trying to deflect.
A lot of conclusions were jumped to early on by everyone. Things are more clear now, but still not 100%. From what I’ve seen so far he was a Trump supporter in his early teens, but did a full 180 in recent years, due to the influence on the internet, as you mentioned, and who knows what else.
If the ultimate joke was to laugh at Trump talking about his ballroom, I don’t see what his maga comments added to that. He stepped into a hornets nest and added nothing to the joke in the process.
By pseudalopex 2025-09-204:501 reply > Anyone hearing this would take away that Tyler was maga, would they not?
No.
> It heavily implies that he is maga
No.
Why would someone have to "desperately try to characterize" someone as something that they clearly are? To me, that language is clearly indicating that it is somehow difficult to do. At that time, it was fairly apparent that he was not MAGA, at least not in any remotely common sense of the word.
> At that time, it was fairly apparent that he was not MAGA
The criticism of the "MAGA gang" was _not_ about their actions at the time of the Kimmel broadcast, it was very much about their immediate behavior as soon as the shooting hit the news .. the time when nothing was known, the time when the FBI head was making statements about suspects that were untrue, the time when the US head of state was declaring war on the left .. you know, the time when nothing was known about the political allegiance of the shooter .. or the lack thereof.
I'm an outside observer, from here it's clear that the US has fallen deep into an Us v Them K-hole and that the current administration is all too happy to turn up the heat on the divisions that render the nation asunder .. the chaos makes the heist all the easier.
By apparent 2025-09-205:13 I could imagine interpreting the statement that way if he had said either before or after that it turned out the shooter was not MAGA. But stating it on its own, the effect in my mind was pretty clear: to communicate that the shooter was MAGA, and that the MAGA gang was doing their best to deny it.
By superultra 2025-09-207:27 The current president and vice president of the United States said on multiple media channels that an entire racial demographic of people in a city were eating cats and dogs, and those same people are concerned about the minutia of a late night comedian’s informational and semantic accuracy (who they also claim no one watches, which is probably itself mostly true).
That’s a lot of pearl clutching don’t you think
By myvoiceismypass 2025-09-2015:351 reply Your god-president lies every single time he opens his mouth. Huge lies. The biggest lies. He also ridicules everyone he dislikes. With hurtful language. All the time.
He has never apologized for jack shit.
> Anyone hearing this would take away that Tyler was maga, would they not? It heavily implies that he is maga, and that’s why the maga gang is trying to deflect.
No one is tuning into Jimmy Kimmell for "news", though I am quite sure that his show is more truthful on a daily basis than your Fox News & Newsmax liars.
> If the ultimate joke was to laugh at Trump talking about his ballroom, I don’t see what his maga comments added to that. He stepped into a hornets nest and added nothing to the joke in the process.
The joke is that Trump probably does not give a flying fuck about Kirk. He cares about himself. That's it. He pivoted right to bragging about his dumb fucking ballroom.
By al_borland 2025-09-2017:00 > Your god-president
> your Fox News & Newsmax
You’re making a lot of assumptions here. Nowhere do I claim any party affiliation. Someone asked a question about why what Jimmy said was controversial, and I did my best to answer why a person might be upset. Other people who may have said similar things aren’t really relevant and it just gets into a game of whataboutism.
It was a political assassination done by someone who vehemently disagreed with certain viewpoints. The details about the shooter clearly indicate which end of the political spectrum he was on. Kimmel's comments were grossly inaccurate and wildly irresponsible.
By margalabargala 2025-09-205:05 > The details about the shooter clearly indicate which end of the political spectrum he was on.
The only thing clear about the shooter's political positions, is that it'll be presented as whatever will be most convenient to the speaker. He held views that individually map across the spectrum, allowing anyone to point to something and assign him at an arbitrary location.
By mcphage 2025-09-206:01 > Kimmel's comments were grossly inaccurate and wildly irresponsible.
Kimmel’s comments are about the behavior of the MAGA world, and they were true: the MAGA world was trying very hard to push the idea that the shooter was not one of them.
By brendoelfrendo 2025-09-205:351 reply > The details about the shooter clearly indicate which end of the political spectrum he was on.
I'm sorry, which details? Why does his opinion about a handful of topics mean that we can infer his entire worldview? Why do we have to assume that his views mapped neatly onto one end of the US political spectrum or the other?
By superultra 2025-09-207:30 I think the problem no one on either side wants to admit is that these shooters rarely fall into either side. They’re mentally unstable people who are attracted to fringe crazy ideas, regardless of the political stripes.
Their behavior indicts all of us Americans.
But of course admitting that and doing something about it means working together, which is a much harder solution than pointing fingers at the other side and doing little else.
Which is known now, but was absolutely not known at the time. There was so, so much complete BS being spread during those 24-48 hours.
By happyopossum 2025-09-204:44 This happened Monday - not last Friday. All of this was known.
I'm sure it's an accident and not intentional! A big corporation would never, ever do something like cause a delay so people cool off and don't bother actually canceling later.
By disney_ta_2025 2025-09-202:205 reply Big corporations are made of people, some who post here.
Disney's internal systems for something like this are a hodgepodge of the Hulu, D+/Bamtech, old corporate disney, and some bits sent out to SaaS. There's been multiple layers of layoffs and service ownership changes since the pandemic. I don't think the org would be able to rate limit by faking crashes if it tried.
What is happening is that routes and systems that normally have little and predictable traffic now are getting exercised... a lot harder (the exact numbers are for management to explain). Most things are going to be very resilient to this, as it's not THAT much traffic: It's still a small fraction vs resubscriptions and logins, but not everything is. Since the unsubscribe flows are never going to be anyone's top priority, this things happen.
You don't have to believe me, but I tell you it's incompetence, not malice.
I appreciate this peek behind the curtain but don't share your cheer that humans being involved in the process somehow means it should get the benefit of the doubt when things like this happen.
By slg 2025-09-203:18 In fact, the reverse is actually quite common. The big corporation part often removes too much of the humanity from people. Too many people are comfortable making incredibly callous decisions at work because, hey, it's not their fault, they're just one small cog in the human crushing machine, and we all know what happens to bad cogs...
As you acquire properties, it's almost never possible to rebuild the systems from scratch, and instead it's becomes layers upon layers of patches and quick fixes.
A fun one lately has been AT&T. We have streaming with DirecTV, and they of course share authentication with the parent AT&T. So whenever I try to login to AT&T's website to manage my wireless or fiber, it redirects and logs me into DirecTV, everytime. The only way I can manage my service is to use AT&T's mobile app.
By leakycap 2025-09-204:21 AT&T has the worst/buggiest login process I've encountered, and I also have to use Comcast/Xfinity.
Logging in to pay AT&T wireless service sometimes takes half an hour of attempts resulting in any number of weird errors until it just works.
By makeitdouble 2025-09-204:08 > Since the unsubscribe flows are never going to be anyone's top priority, this things happen.
This in itself makes the situation intentional.
By JBlue42 2025-09-213:46 Hulu had some major problems during the broadcast of the Oscars so I was surprised but not surprised to hear about the issues with this.
>Disney's internal systems for something like this are a hodgepodge of the Hulu, D+/Bamtech, old corporate disney, and some bits sent out to SaaS. There's been multiple layers of layoffs and service ownership changes since the pandemic. I don't think the org would be able to rate limit by faking crashes if it tried.
Finance bros and execs love M&A because they can hire a consultant to do all the hard work and get a nice paycheck yet they really suck for the little people and those trying to keep the lights on. Good luck out there.
Maybe one day we'll figure out this anti-trust thing.
By MonkeyIsNull 2025-09-202:461 reply “Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence”
By leakycap 2025-09-202:49 This way of thinking has excused a lot of evil/malicious actions. I think it's time we actually start shining our collective flashlights at things, especially big companies, when their own systems break in ways that benefit them.
It's possible but I think Hanlon's Razor is more likely. I saw this happen myself and the form submission was successful on the second attempt. I just don't think they had the capacity to handle this surge of traffic to this endpoint/service.
By AndyKelley 2025-09-201:294 reply It can be a mixture of both. It's extremely easy to Cover Your Ass while intentionally dragging your feet when a bug works in your favor. The manager simply has to decide that other tasks are higher priority.
Why would any manager prioritize this when it's going to blow over in less than a day, as evidenced by other commentators saying the site is already back up?
By AndyKelley 2025-09-208:111 reply Right. I mean, ideally, because regulations have sufficient teeth that the company's existence is jeopardized by having shady business practices. When "it's a bug" is no longer an excuse, they could have avoided such a risk by having customers buy punch cards rather than saving their credit cards, for instance.
By ndkap 2025-09-2014:09 This administration is not going to apply said regulations, especially when the said regulations us punishing what they are favoring
By thierrydamiba 2025-09-201:495 reply Call it HN’s rule: Never attribute to incompetence what can be attributed to malice
By lovelearning 2025-09-202:136 reply The problem with "Hanlon's Razor" is that everything can be explained by incompetence by making suitable assumptions. It outright denies the possibility of malice and pretends as if malice is rare. Basically, a call to always give the benefit of the doubt to every person or participant's moral character without any analysis whatsoever of their track record.
Robert Hanlon himself doesn't seem to be notable in any area of rationalist or scientific philosophy. The most I could find about him online is that he allegedly wrote a joke book related to Murphy's laws. Over time, it appears this obscure statement from that book was appended with Razor and it gained respectability as some kind of a rationalist axiom. Nowhere is it explained why this Razor needs to be an axiom. It doesn't encourage the need to reason, examine any evidence, or examine any probabilities. Bayesian reasoning? Priors? What the hell are those? Just say "Hanlon's Razor" and nothing more needs to be said. Nothing needs to be examined.
The FS blog also cops out on this lazy shortcut by saying this:
> The default is to assume no malice and forgive everything. But if malice is confirmed, be ruthless.
No conditions. No examination of data. Just an absolute assumption of no malice. How can malice ever be confirmed in most cases? Malicious people don't explain all their deeds so we can "be ruthless."
We live in a probabilistic world but this Razor blindly says always assume the probability of malice is zero, until using some magical leap of reasoning that must not involve assuming any malice whatsoever anywhere in the chain of reasoning (because Hanlon's Razor!), this probability of malice magically jumps to one, after which we must "become ruthless." I find it all quite silly.
By danielheath 2025-09-203:251 reply Assuming incompetence instead of malice is how you remain collegiate and cordial with others.
Assuming malice from people you interact with means dividing your community into smaller and smaller groups, each suspicious of the other.
Assuming malice from an out group who have regularly demonstrated their willingness to cause harm doesn’t have that problem.
By makeitdouble 2025-09-203:57 From parent's comment
> It doesn't encourage the need to reason, examine any evidence, or examine any probabilities
Parent isn't advocating for assuming malice, or assuming anything really, but to reason about the causes. Basically, that we'd have better discourse if no axiom was used in the first place.
By AppleBananaPie 2025-09-202:26 I agree. It seems to be an all too common example of both: 1. lack of nuance in thought (i.e. either assume good intentions or assume malice, not some probability of either, or a scale of malice) 2. the overwhelming prevalence of bad faith arguments, most commonly picking the worst possible argument feasibly with someone's words.
In this case instead of a possibility of it being a small act of opportunity (like mentioned above of just dragging feet) not premeditated, alternatives are never mentioned but instead just assumed folks are talking about some higher up conspiracy and on top of that that must be what these people are always doing.
Anyway thank you for your point it is an interesting read :)
By lazyasciiart 2025-09-204:04 It doesn’t say don’t think about malice as a possibility, it says that if you aren’t going to think about it, you should ignore malice as a possibility.
By SantalBlush 2025-09-202:35 Yep, "Hanlon's Razor" is pseudo-intellectual nonsense. It sets up a false dichotomy between two characteristics, neither of which is usually sufficient to explain a bad action.
By chrisweekly 2025-09-202:512 reply IMHO you're taking it a bit too literally and seriously; I suggest interpreting it more loosely, ie "err on the side of assuming incompetence [given incompetence is rampant] and not malice [which is much rarer]." As a rule of thumb, it's a good one.
By makeitdouble 2025-09-204:021 reply To me the more problematic part is anchoring the discussion into rejecting a specific extreme (malice) when there will be a lot of behavior either milder, or neither incompetence nor malice. For instance is greed, opportunism or apathy malice ?
By chrisweekly 2025-09-2011:56 Good point. Basic self-interest is also as likely as incompetence. (shrug)
By ThrowMeAway1618 2025-09-217:35 ¿Por que no los dos?
By Ferret7446 2025-09-202:248 reply That's because actual malice IS rare. Corporations are not filled with evil people, but people make perfectly rational, normal decisions based on their incentives that result in the emergent phenomenon of perceived malicious actions.
Even Hitler's actions can be traced through a perfectly understandable, although not morally condone-able, chain of events. I truly believe that he did not want to just kill people and commit evil, he truly wanted to better Germany and the human race, but on his journey he drove right off the road, so to speak. To quote CS Lewis, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
By SantalBlush 2025-09-202:41 The "malice" part of the razor is bait. People typically act out of self-interest, not malice. That's why anyone who parrots Hanlon's Razor has already lost; they fell for the false dichotomy between malice and incompetence, when self-interest isn't even offered as an explanation.
By tbrownaw 2025-09-202:38 That's why scapegoating and demonizing people is so bad, it's a way of telling folks that violence can make the world better instead of worse.
By AppleBananaPie 2025-09-202:28 What is rare? How is this measured?
Why do incentives result in perceived malicious actions rather than just malicious actions or minor malicious actions?
On top of this no one has said corporations are filled with evil people.
By leakycap 2025-09-2121:25 By Supermancho 2025-09-203:03 > Corporations are not filled with evil people, but people make perfectly rational, normal decisions based on their incentives that result in the emergent phenomenon of perceived malicious actions.
This rationalization is cope. All US Corporations making "normal" decisions all the time isn't casually obvious. I would say that wherever there is an opportunity to exploit the customer, they usually do at different levels of sophistication. This may mistakenly seem like fair play to someone who thinks a good UI is a good trade for allocated advertisement space, when it's literally social engineering.
Corporations make decisions that more frequently benefit them at the cost of some customer resource. Pair that with decisions rarely being rolled back (without financial incentive), you get a least-fair optimization over time. This is not normal by any stretch, as people expect a somewhat fair value proposition. Corporations aren't geared for that.
By chrisweekly 2025-09-203:04 Agreed that actual malice is relatively rare (at least, relative to incompetence!). But I feel your take on Hitler is questionable. The question of evil is a tricky one, but I don't think there's a good case to be made that he was only trying to do the right thing. He was completely insane. But leaving aside moral culpability or metaphysical notions of judgment, for any definition of "malice", he embodied it to an the absolute maximum degree.
By zuminator 2025-09-204:27 > That's because actual malice IS rare. Corporations are not filled with evil people,
Corporations don't have to be filled with evil people for malice to be rampant. All it takes is for one person in a position of power or influence who is highly motivated to screw over other human beings to create a whole lot of malice. We can all think of examples of public officials or powerful individuals who have made it their business to spread misery to countless others. Give them a few like-minded deputies and the havoc they wreak can be incalculable.
As for Hitler, if we can't even agree that orchestrating and facilitating the death of millions of innocent people is malicious, then malice has no meaning.
C. S. Lewis has written a great many excellent things, but his quote there strikes me as self-satisfied sophistry. Ask people being carpet bombed or blockade and starved if they're grateful that at least their adversary isn't trying to help them.
By leakycap 2025-09-203:17 Ferret7446:
> Even Hitler's actions can be traced through a perfectly understandable, although not morally condone-able, chain of events. I truly believe that he did not want to just kill people and commit evil, he truly wanted to better Germany and the human race, but on his journey he drove right off the road, so to speak.
Disgusting take. Don't simp for hitler. How am I having to type this in 2025?
By silverquiet 2025-09-202:072 reply I recently heard on a podcast where one of the guests recounted what his father used to say about the employees making cash-handling mistakes in the small store he owned. It was something like, "if it was merely incompetence, you'd think half of the errors would be in my favor."
It probably is a glitch in this case, but it's hard not to see the dark patterns once you've learned about them.
By ipaddr 2025-09-205:14 If you short charge a customer they will demand correct change if you overpay a customer won't complain. In the cases of customers giving back extra money it becomes neutral.
His father's theory didn't take into account this.
By trained6446 2025-09-204:26 Incompetence, filtered by customers biased to complain when cheated, and ignore mistakes in their favour?
By danaris 2025-09-2023:13 Hanlon's Razor is for a situation where good faith can be assumed, or the benefit of the doubt given.
When the actors involved have shown themselves to be self-interested, bad-faith, or otherwise undeserving of the benefit of the doubt, it can be abandoned, and malice assumed where it has been clearly present before.
By 8note 2025-09-204:35 my first manager told my as i started my first oncall "we dont think anybody actually cares about this thing, so if it breaks, dont fix it too quickly, so we can see who notices"
I’m amazed at the prevalence of conspiracy theories on HN in recent years. Even for simple topics like a website crashing under load we get claims that it’s actually a deliberate conspiracy, even though the crashes have turned this from a quiet event into a social media and news phenomenon, likely accelerating the number of cancellations.
By arcticbull 2025-09-202:031 reply COVID years really messed some people up.
You mean like all the people that died? The caretakers in the years after? The medical staff who never got a break? You're right about that.
By arcticbull 2025-09-206:141 reply My comment was not about COVID.
Your comment was:
> COVID years really messed some people up.
You seem to think that you said something different than you did.
If you don't see where your communication broke down, look closely the first word of the quote above. That's you, in case you forgot.
By arcticbull 2025-09-2020:411 reply No, what I said was the COVID years. People became dramatically more prone to conspiracy theories and significantly more polarized in the 2020-2025 period. A lot more happened to people than just exposure to COVID, which was of course part of it. I'm not talking about the people who died or the healthcare workers. There was a meaningful step change in the way we interact with each other and what is acceptable. There was a huge impact to the social fabric and cohesion of society.
Using my eyes, I looked back at the text on my screen next to your username.
Your comment was 7 words, one of which is literally "COVID". Then you said you're weren't actually talking about COVID, but you actually meant something about how you think others are now prone to dramatic conspiracy theories.
It seems like you're experiencing some of this yourself or are stuck in some sort of race condition where if someone else doesn't agree with you, it's clearly a them issue. They're the conspiricist.
While explaining that you intended me to get a whole different message from your initial 7 words, you go on to say that while discussing the "COVID years" that...
> I'm not talking about the people who died or the healthcare workers.
Why aren't you focusing on these things? It seems much more important than whatever you are spinning on about the social fabric and cohesion of society as you type into a webform to a stranger about how everyone has conspiracies now.
By zitterbewegung 2025-09-202:39 You see this in video games. Game breaking bugs ? Next week. People can’t buy or use a skin(s) for a weapon? Less than 24 hr fix .
By da_chicken 2025-09-202:03 That's true, but it's seldom going to be the case that the account cancellation portion of the app is all on it's own. It's going to be built into the rest of the application, including the parts your happy customers are actually paying for. You're taking down a lot of the site.
And I don't know about others, but the one thing that's sure to make me cancel and never return is when a business tries to be a jerk about subscribers. I know one subscription service that when you try to cancel will instead ask you to pause. Except when you pause, the site will make the buttons to complete a sale begin disabled. Then 10 to 15 seconds later, the button enables. It only does this so that they can show you a request to resume your subscription. Nope. I immediately went and fully cancelled, and I haven't been back. I only intended to pause for a short time because I was unable to use the service at all for several weeks. Instead because they wanted to grasp onto every customer too tightly, and they lost me for good. They didn't respect me, so I don't want their product anymore.
I've often advocated for inverting Hanlon's razor whenever money is involved. The more money is at stake, the more likely it is in fact due to malice.
By someguyiguess 2025-09-204:35 I have to agree. When money is involved I defer to Occam’s Razor.
By vlovich123 2025-09-202:02 That’s the trick with capacity planning around cancellation. You can always deprioritize it because any improvement increases the speed with which revenue decreases (not valuable to the business) and customer satisfaction with this flow generally doesn’t matter since you’re losing their business. The only negative risk factor is CC chargebacks which will cost you some money but at scale most people generally don’t deal with that hassle vs just trying to cancel a few times.
By dawnerd 2025-09-201:17 Anyone that’s used any of Disneys sites know they break at random on a good day. Just look how many people complain about the DCL site having issues.
I considered that, but there's a very real risk that the bad-press of it crashing will have an even bigger financial effect.
By SoftTalker 2025-09-201:543 reply These protest boycotts never last very long. There are many large brand names that have been boycotted over the years and they are all still in business and mostly bigger than ever.
I believe Disney has been subjected to several.
Boycotts are different from unsubscribing. You can boycott Chic-fil-a and then one day return, but cutting off monthly revenue streams all at once is a much different dynamic. It takes a lot to get those customers back, especially for a service that already reaches most Americans.
By dgacmu 2025-09-202:28 I cancelled on Wednesday night. We probably haven't watched anything on Disney+for two or three weeks; the value was getting lower over time (possibly because we've watched a lot of what we wanted to).
Had it not been for this event, I'd have probably just let the subscription hang around indefinitely (or until some big price increase caused me to reevaluate it), but as you note, it's going to be a struggle to get me back --- not because of the politics involved, but because the politics got me over the "eh, can't be bothered" hump to evaluate the value I was getting and it came up kinda marginal compared to when I first signed up.
By SoftTalker 2025-09-202:35 Maybe. There are lots of people who subscribe to these streaming services for a month or a season and then cancel, and then sign up again later because there's a new show they want to watch.
Look at Target’s yearly chart. Then look at Walmart’s to see where it should have been.
Some people have been boycotting target for a while now, but people have also been boycotting walmart for longer. Both companies are still around and have billions (tens and hundreds of billions) in assets. Enough people will keep shopping there to keep them in business. If either company ever does die off it won't be because of a boycott. Even where boycotts have a measurable impact on their earnings it's not as if it matters. Do you think the CEO of either company would have to meaningfully change their lifestyle one bit if the company makes make a few billion less one year? They wouldn't feel it even if they never got another dime from their company again. They'd still be able to live out the rest of their lives without ever worrying about money. They have no reason to fear a boycott.
It doesn't stop me from avoiding shopping at them both, but I know they aren't losing any sleep over it and I don't expect they'll suddenly stop putting profit over everything else.
By kjkjadksj 2025-09-2018:01 Targets CEO of 11 years is currently being forced out. Yeah, I’d say the shareholders are pissed when the stock is literally -40% on the year while other companies in this sector are doing the opposite. Their stock is one of the worst performing in the sp500 this year. Long term outlook is worse by the day.
By nitwit005 2025-09-203:14 The big conglomerates are more resistant to it. Even of one of their brands becomes damaged, they have 20 others. It's hard for people to even understand all the things they own.
By adrr 2025-09-202:54 It would be hard to keep a secret. Someone would leak it. When i worked a for a social network, we were accused of censorship during a presidential election campaign. People were sharing and posting a clip of text in support of a candidate. It triggered the spam system which categorized it as bot spam and deleted all the posts because all the posts were identical.
By is_true 2025-09-202:05 I've used Disney+ and I think I never used the app without experiencing some kind of issue.
By thrill 2025-09-202:16 Bravo sir, bravo.
By rdtsc 2025-09-203:31 > A big corporation would never, ever do something like cause a delay so people cool off and don't bother actually canceling later.
They better be sure there are no disgruntled or unhappy employees and no layoffs coming up, otherwise that slack or email message will come out and it will just make things worse.
By duxup 2025-09-2021:20 A website or service unable to handle traffic is still a thing in this day and age.
By ajkjk 2025-09-203:50 this is probably the case, not sarcastically
By blindriver 2025-09-202:00 Load shedding
just cancelled my hulu/disney bundle and requested to delete my disney account which was processed immediately and was very easy to find.
deleting the hulu account took me effort, had to search for it and log into a special site and only a submit request to yet to be processed.
so actually props to disney for not being user hostile.
