this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
389 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3195 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do they mean 1.3 Million subscribers dropped Disney+ ?
If that's what they meant, english would actually let them say that.
I think they mean it that way as in their numbers dropped. Disney+ dropped (by) 1.3million
I can be pretty pedantic, but that seemed clear to me. Thinking about it, I regularly here "Disney has x subscribers" and much less frequently they "x people subscribe to Disney." So following that convention, saying that Disney has dropped subscribers makes perfect sense.
( no english major here, by far)
but I suspect my qualm is: which entity is the actor and which is the acted upon.
Disney did not act to remove the subscribers, but rather the opposite, the subscribers acted to drop Disney.
One might extrapolate that Disney's previous actions directly lead to the event.
Does that stand to reason?