> And you can't do shit without agreeing to some ToS or EULA. And it's guaranteed to have some damned binding arbitration clause[0], if it comes from a company

> And you can't do shit without agreeing to some ToS or EULA. And it's guaranteed to have some damned binding arbitration clause[0], if it comes from a company based in the United States, so when[1] everything that company knows about you is "unintentionally" transmitted to every hacker and script kiddy with a modicum of PHP knowledge, you can't even band together and financially ruin the company. Not that you'd be able to get anything out of them, anyway, since 90% of them are so knee-deep in venture capital money that you'd be 9,392nd in line behind the likes Sequoia, Andreessen, Y Combinator, and Honest Achmend's Certificate Authority and Investing Company. I guess I'm getting old but, damn, I'm really starting to hate the corporate Internet. 0 - I loathe every single one of you who has ever posted on a Hacker News thread about how horrible binding arbitration clauses are and who are also founders/CEOs/operators of companies with binding arbitration clauses in your terms of service. This goes quadruple for companies that are B2C. I do not care if "everyone else is doing it" or your "lawyers recommended it." Grow a spine and delete the clause if it's so awful. Go first. Be bold. Half points for burying an opt-out that requires faxing a notarized statement to a phone number in Saint Pierre and Miquelon. That's better than nothing. 1 - It's not "if" anymore, it's when.