[theherk]

Binding arbitration is the most sure fired sign of an organization that hates its users and is fully against the rule of law and the rights of consumers. What a deeply disappointing development.

I’d rather an organization kick puppies and kidnap babies than implement binding / opt OUT arbitration. I’m so irritated by this. It is the first major misstep by the organization and unfortunately makes you about as honorable as Microsoft.

Absolutely galled.

I hope there will be a hard fork that is properly maintained and doesn’t hate its users.

[akagusu]

Here is a fork: https://gram.liten.app/

[alfiedotwtf]

These are usually standard clauses in any legal contract

[theherk]

Yes, in the USA, largely due to the Federal Arbitration Act and generally weak consumer protections, it has become the norm to force users to give up their rights in this way, to move from publicly funded dispute resolution complete with accountability and transparency, to a private funded system which nearly always benefits corporations, prevents acting as a class, and prevents appeal. That isn't acceptable.

[noplacelikehome]

They are absolutely not common in Europe, and aren't even generally enforceable in consumer contracts. They're considered non-binding, as they're "unfair terms" in the Unfair Terms Directive 1993.

[alfiedotwtf]

Funny to think about this though… since no money was exchanged, is it even binding given there was no consideration?