As someone who has also been in an arbitration (though not forced), and had a generally decent outcome, I still understand why consumers dislike these policies.

As someone who has also been in an arbitration (though not forced), and had a generally decent outcome, I still understand why consumers dislike these policies. Court is an essential part of government function that allows two parties to be judged fairly in a dispute. It's the great equalizer- at least in theory. While the act of going to court with a lawyer is expensive, court itself is not expensive. Moreover, court cases can be used as precedent for other court cases. Evidence found in one case can be used in another. Arbitration works very differently. Firstly, an arbitration clause may allow for the party with more "clout" to specify a less fair arbitration body. While the matter of arbitration fairness is complex, it's certainly not wild speculation that some bodies side more with some kinds of entities than others. Secondly, arbitration requires up front payment. This can actually be a good thing for consumers in that it forces both parties to pay, but it costs a lot of money- thousands of dollars. Most people aren't going to spend that kind of money. Thirdly, arbitration is not court, and findings in arbitration can't be used either in court, or in future arbitration cases. This provides an advantage to the big company, since they know what they might face, but each time a consumer goes after them, they're starting essentially from scratch! Lastly, it precludes collective action. Each Discord user who feels wronged may not have the resources to arbitrate on their own, which is why the courts allow for class action lawsuits. Forced arbitration takes that option away.