Correct. That is your option when presented with unacceptable terms. Don't accept them. Counter with your own terms (not likely to work for run-of-the-mill online services though).
Additionally you may lobby your lawmakers to make this sort of thing illegal or at least more limited. But these arbitration clauses appeared because our civil law system was out of control with lawsuits. There needs to be reasonable limits on both sides.
Speaking precisely, a small minority is plenty. Successful businesses can run off a few hundred repeat customers and a bit of passion. The root cause is more that it is irrational to behave that way so there may be literally no or single digit people who will behave that way.
Putting some estimates to the situation, the calculation is something like (chance of a serious dispute arising = 0.0001) x (chance of a payout from the courts = 0.33) x (payout = $100,000) -> I'd be willing to pay $3.30 extra to avoid fixed arbitration clauses in a deal where there was serious money at stake.
That doesn't exactly capture all the game theory of the situation, but it suggests the risks here aren't worth shopping around for. It is easier and more effective to engage in economic voting with feet and punishing businesses that way for failure.
Additionally you may lobby your lawmakers to make this sort of thing illegal or at least more limited. But these arbitration clauses appeared because our civil law system was out of control with lawsuits. There needs to be reasonable limits on both sides.