This is what we need, yeah. I don't have a problem with binding arbitration if parties with equal leverage agree to it, but it should be flat out illegal to require it as terms of employment or part of ToS.
Modern civil law seems to revolve around this quaint fiction of contracts being some sort of "meeting of the minds" of relatively equally resourced parties.
This might have been viable in 1795, but it feels ill suited to a world where we have billion dollar firms, legal staff on retainer, and contracts that have been revised like a codebase... versus consumers with no formal legal training.
Even if there wasn't an inherent inequality of field, the high cost of litigation also encourages a tendency to ask for the unreasonable. The people presenting the contract know there's probably not enough money in it for anyone but the wealthy and begrudged to try to challenge the contract, so there's little risk to asking for more permissions, less liability, and tighter binding on the consumer. In the worst case, the cost serves as an effective bludgeon for abusive behaviour: they'll go along because they can't afford to get a favourable judgement.
I dream of a world where there's no surprises in contracts-- basically there'd be a book of standard contracts filled out in a Mad Lib fashion. This would collapse a lot of the possibilities courts would have to deal with, resulting in a faster, predictable, almost deterministic legal system. If someone actually wanted to bring out a new clause, it would have to go through a highly-visible, paperwork-intensive vetting and discussion process. The Discords of the world then have to face very public scrutiny of their actions and motives: what makes your needs so special that they can't be dealt with using the standard contract for data services?
Let’s forget employment for a sec and just look at a product’s terms. Why can’t you just not use the product?
“It’s popular” is hardly an excuse for something new if you’re picking the platform.
If it’s an existing community and you feel forced to join a closed system with too many rules for your tastes, skip it. The community will suffer and hopefully they change to something you’ll like. But if not, screw em.
Voting with your feet only works if your feet have somewhere else to go. Binding arbitration is a cancer that is everywhere and spreading. Your due diligence to choose products that have no binding arbitration are futile, because they can change the game any time. You can opt out, but then they play the arbitration do-over card like Discord is doing here and nullify that unless you opt out again. You can’t win.
Countries regularly legislate and regulate against various forms of unfair terms in contracts, ranging from the deceptive and absurd to fairly mundane things. You can’t enter into contracts requiring illegal behaviour for instance. This is true in the U.S. and all other countries that I’m aware of.
In the UK and other European countries, particularly regarding consumer goods or other kinds of contracts with an inherent asymmetry of negotiating power, there are lots of things you can’t agree in contracts, such as disclaiming general fitness for purpose and safety.
Deciding that you can’t agree away your rights to redress through the judicial system seems like a reasonable extension of these kinds of rules.
> In my personal experience, it’s worked out fine.
Okay, but you do realize other people have a different experience of the world, right?
Discord is super-easy to avoid right up until it turns out the only communities for something are on Discord. Or your teacher assigns you work that requires using it. Or your work requires you to use it. Or...
And the thing is, 99% of us will never run into any of those situations! It's easy not to be affected personally, right up until you are
> Not reading the thing you’re agreeing to is not an excuse.
Okay, but I did read the entire TOS at the time - now I'm required to also read every update and respond within a 30 day period. Which, again, easy not to be personally affected right up until you're on vacation in a region with bad internet, or just super-busy with work and you miss that one email
> And again, consumers can vote with their feet by only agreeing to terms that are understandable.
We ban all sorts of contracts - you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't agree to commit a crime. So what's wrong with voting with our actual vote, instead?
Especially since I'm interested in protecting not just myself, but other people who might not realize how much this potentially disadvantages them.
