I think they mean it that way as in their numbers dropped. Disney+ dropped (by) 1.3million

They want Disney+ as the first word. Loses would be a better word than drops, but the writing style is more like an investor’s report or article for investors. Dropped is used to insinuate that Disney was expecting it and planned it, which favors the company… Which is ultimately the true intent. The writer is probably a robot anyway, if not literal then figurative.

We’re at the point where “journalism” is completely captured by companies that advertise on these news outlets. People are excited to see X fall due to advertisers pulling out, but consider that power against every news outlet. That’s the situation we’re in now. X is just proof that all news is captured, not a one off event.

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?