2 ms·
The corporation did not do this to her. It was a two party agreement. She bears just as much blame for the agreement as the corporation. She entered into it wil
by zaphar 6mo ago
The corporation did not do this to her. It was a two party agreement. She bears just as much blame for the agreement as the corporation. She entered into it willingly. And that does and should have consequences.
Morally speaking I think the company is reprehensible. But nor do I think contact law should be changed because of it.
- rkomorn 6mo agoI'd agree with you if there wasn't a significant power imbalance that virtually always skews way more in favor of the corporation. It is far more likely that an individual would do best to agree to a corporation's terms even if they favor the corporation than the other way around.
- zaphar 6mo agoThe antidote to a power imbalance is to recognize that there is no power imbalance and go about your life that way. Pretending there is one lands you in an imaginary trap. Build a society where we recognize that and you build a society where the imaginary trap disappears.
- mindslight 6mo agoYou're the one pretending here. The economy is unfortunately designed around most people relying on an income stream that remains at the whims of someone else.