Applying the principle of charity our parent quoted their terms to demonstrate consent, not legal trickery. The criticism against this argument would be that t

Applying the principle of charity our parent quoted their terms to demonstrate consent, not legal trickery. The criticism against this argument would be that those terms aren't sufficient to provide consent as people habitually ignore them. Not sure what would count as the morally appropriate implementation of consent. Probably some middle-ground between buried in terms and continuously re-emerging full screen blocking warning labels. The easy way out is probably found in some of the legal implementations of sufficiently informed consent.