[axiosgunnar]

Do note though that „legal fine print“ is similar to „React-Node.js-Mongodb“ boilerplate.

Meaning that it sometimes makes sense to not have to start off at zero.

Also complaining about long contracts is like saying „I don't like this program because the source code is too long“. Depending on the program, this might be a little capricious.

Do you want lawyers to be „code golfing“?

[RugnirViking]

If somebody handed me a program and asked me to prove that there wasn't a virus/security vulnerability hidden somewhere in the source code, yeah I might well say that "I don't like this program because the source code is too long“. Especially if I had to do that for a different program every time I wanted to buy or do pretty much anything at all

[nerdponx]

I've been arguing that length is just a result of complexity, and at the real problem is complexity.

But I suppose in an extreme case, you could obfuscate a simple program by making it really long.

[nerdponx]

Nobody is arguing against reusable, well-tested chunks of legal text!

The argument is that there are too many detailed requirements for typical consumers to reasonably agree to, and moreover they tend to be hidden away where users can't even find them anyway.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think Justice Stevens' objection that the text was too small actually misses the mark. What else are they going to do, have you mail an old-school SASE to an office, or go to some website?

The problem is that consumers don't actually have alternatives to agreeing to terms like this, so the assertion that consumers enter into these agreements "voluntarily" is flawed, because it's not voluntary if there are no alternatives.

[afiori]

If the contract is long but most of it are examples, explanations of terms, and references to where and how things are defined then length would not be a problem.