> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.

Or Disney telling you they are exempt from killing someone in their theme park restaurants because you signed up to Disney+… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go

> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.

and you are not allowed to criticize it or write about the size of it or how much meat there is in it or how filling it is to eat the burger.

and you are definitely not allowed to compare it to burgers from other companies.

Not to mention the unreasonable length and complexity of these things. I’ve seen shorter contracts for mergers and acquisitions.

Actually it's like McDonalds removing pickles from the big mac after it was already served to your table

>It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.

And the way the resteraunt this right is by covering their walls with TOS text like an Egyptian tomb.

> The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable.

Why? Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things?

> Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service, or about setting up competing products. It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.

It is vaguely like that, but but I'm not sure the analogy facilitates understanding of this subject. McDonalds shouldn't tell you how you can eat your burger, therefore... companies must not enforce any terms on their services aside from those things. Why?

I'm not saying any term should be enforceable. Contract law has a long history against that. I just wonder how and where you draw the line and what existing law is insufficient.