> While that may sound reasonable initially, that means that nearly all of the amazing services we have would be impossible from a business perspective.
Is that not the point of pursuing this train of thought? You aren't going to get businesses that have honest transactions with customers when such dishonest practices are allowed and generate enormous profits.
You can certainly be of the opinion that these contracts are by definition dishonest, and there are definitely companies that do shady things and protect themselves with these types of contracts. But I think that there have to be at least some examples of services that are honest that still need these types of protections.
Imagine a service that is objectively good -- maybe a non-profit organization creates a free app to help connect homeless people with food, shelter, and potential employment opportunities. Businesses can then use the app to post jobs, etc. The non-profit runs on a shoe-string budget and certainly cannot afford to get caught up in litigation related to issues arising between users of the app (e.g., a homeless user upset that they did not get a job because a bug in the app lost their application, or a business upset because they were connected with a dishonest applicant). It seems fair that the non-profit should be able to limit its liability here.
You have a really good point about deceptive businesses and the importance of transparency and balancing the power between businesses and consumers. It is bad that shady businesses can be protected by contracts, but those contracts also protect good businesses. I honestly do not know what the solution is, but I personally think that eliminating contracts is less useful than strong consumer protection legislation like stronger privacy laws.
> Imagine a service that is objectively good -- maybe a non-profit organization creates a free app to help connect homeless people with food, shelter, and potential employment opportunities. Businesses can then use the app to post jobs, etc. The non-profit runs on a shoe-string budget and certainly cannot afford to get caught up in litigation related to issues arising between users of the app (e.g., a homeless user upset that they did not get a job because a bug in the app lost their application, or a business upset because they were connected with a dishonest applicant). It seems fair that the non-profit should be able to limit its liability here.
Certainly they should be liable for their service—of course they should be! You can’t expect a non-profit to do the government’s job, and certainly not without public (by which I mean via tax or capital) funding.
Regardless of non-profits, it’s a complete perversion of the very idea of “consent” to refer the users of the internet as consenting to any ads or data mining. There is no transaction to access the service, no way to view the true cost of the service or how much derived value your data has, no way to simply pay for the service with what the ad clients would have paid for the ad slots. In my book that’s completely dishonest. IMHO the onus is entirely on the company to explain and allow transparency into their monetization. If not, there’s nothing distinguishing what people might call “evil” behavior from what is apparently a competitive edge in the market, a “good” in America if I’ve ever heard it.
Is that not the point of pursuing this train of thought? You aren't going to get businesses that have honest transactions with customers when such dishonest practices are allowed and generate enormous profits.