4 ms·

you dont have to deal with them if you dont want to. i do not see the coercion.

• d110af5ccf 5y ago
  Ah yes, just don't participate in society if I wish to retain my "rights". Why didn't I think of that?! That being said, rights are being restored in this case (ie things are heading back to the courts) so GP seems a bit off base to me in context.
  • beart 5y ago
    "rights are being restored" feels wrong in this context. "A corporation has determined its more profitable to let you sue them" seems more accurate.
• rtkwe 5y ago
  Pretty much every contract with a large company has a similar clause in it where they require you to go to arbitration instead of through the courts for disputes. This site requires binding arbitration in it's TOS, to avoid it you basically cannot use any service that's not open source and self hosted. No power, internet, cable, etc either those also definitely have BA clauses, it's impossible to live in modern society without agreeing to it because everyone requires it.
  • mtnGoat 5y ago
    True, but in this case I was specifically referring to Amazon, which you can pretty easily live without ordering on. I have family that doesn’t have internet, never have and are doing fine. It’s quite possible. Just because you can’t handle it, doesn’t make it not possible.
    • rtkwe 5y ago
      You were making an argument about choice though when there's not really a choice to avoid binding arbitration clauses. It's not just an internet company thing most contracts include a BA clause because arbitration is generally favorable to businesses. Amazon is only removing it because someone figured out they could cost Amazon a lot of money in arbitration filing fees by taking essentially a whole class action suit into the arbitration system.