this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2025
1314 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

75436 readers
2673 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.nz/post/28397398

The suspension triggered strong responses across social media and beyond. Hashtags like #CancelDisneyPlus and #CancelHulu trended as users shared screenshots of their canceled subscriptions.

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 66 points 3 days ago (2 children)

“Crashes”? How convenient.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 days ago

The cancellation page specifically. Everything else is fine.

[–] Bongles@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 days ago (6 children)

On one hand, could be a "crash". On the other hand, tons of websites break when they get a little extra traffic.

Side tangent, seems odd to me this is still a thing. Most company websites aren't hosted on premises, so do these services like (i assume) AWS not scale for when there's traffic? Squarespace has been advertising for years that it will scale up if there's extra traffic. I've never tested it but still.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 14 points 3 days ago

You have to design for scalability. Bottlenecks may be wherever. Even if their virtual server CPU and RAM can scale up, other stuff may be bottlenecks. Maybe the connection to the DB. Maybe the DB is elsewhere and doesn't scale. Can't really reasonably guess from the outside.

Mass cancellation is not usually a thing they would design around bottle-necks. It also doesn't add value to them.

Scaling has a budget, I’m sure. They’ll only pay for so much.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If your page is just static, e.g. no login, no interaction, everyone always sees the same thing then it scales easily. Scaling means you copy the site to more servers. Now imagine a user adds a comment. Now you need to add the comment to every copy of your site, so that everyone sees it regardless of which server they use. So a comment creates more work the more servers you use. And this is where scaling becomes a complex science, that you need to manually prepare for as a software developer. You need to figure out what data will be stored where and accessed how.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Caching servers, they self replicate when a change is committed, then send back a signal to main server that task has completed

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am not sure what you are trying to say?

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh right, I skipped a part. It is not really a dev complexity prep issue. You build the database that serves the comments etc in as of in one place, then you deploy cache servers for scaling. They self replicate, so a comment in California gets commited to the dbase, the server in new York pulls the info over from the Cali change, it sends back that it is synced with the change. And vice versa. The caching servers do the work, not your program.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That entirely depends on your application. What you described is one possible approach, that will only work in specific circumstances.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Besides application specifics, its how the internet works currently to give low latency. AWS, Azure, Linode etc have data centers across the globe to replicate data near where the people are.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Again, yes and no. While you are right pretty much every larger website will use a cache server in some way (at least in form of a CDN), cache servers really don't help you in any way for things like a customer canceling their subscription, which is what this post is about. That is all back-end work. Yes, those are probably those app specifics you mention but glossing over them misses the point why solving this is not as easy as enabling auto-scaleing.

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

Side tangent, seems odd to me this is still a thing. Most company websites aren't hosted on premises, so do these services like (i assume) AWS not scale for when there's traffic?

Scaling is only for companies that have not been allowed to purchase and enshittify every serious competitor. (Pixar, Marvel, HBO...)

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I feel like Disney has internal stuff? I listened to a podcast where an ex employee changed the fonts on a bunch of stuff to be wingdings, etc, and made everything unusable.

[–] okmko@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

It could also be poor graceful failure. What we see as a crash may be from some unavailability deep in a long pipeline of services.