Countries regularly legislate and regulate against various forms of unfair terms in contracts, ranging from the deceptive and absurd to fairly mundane things. You can’t enter into contracts requiring illegal behaviour for instance. This is true in the U.S. and all other countries that I’m aware of.

In the UK and other European countries, particularly regarding consumer goods or other kinds of contracts with an inherent asymmetry of negotiating power, there are lots of things you can’t agree in contracts, such as disclaiming general fitness for purpose and safety.

Deciding that you can’t agree away your rights to redress through the judicial system seems like a reasonable extension of these kinds of rules.

> In my personal experience, it’s worked out fine.

Okay, but you do realize other people have a different experience of the world, right?

Discord is super-easy to avoid right up until it turns out the only communities for something are on Discord. Or your teacher assigns you work that requires using it. Or your work requires you to use it. Or...

And the thing is, 99% of us will never run into any of those situations! It's easy not to be affected personally, right up until you are

> Not reading the thing you’re agreeing to is not an excuse.

Okay, but I did read the entire TOS at the time - now I'm required to also read every update and respond within a 30 day period. Which, again, easy not to be personally affected right up until you're on vacation in a region with bad internet, or just super-busy with work and you miss that one email

> And again, consumers can vote with their feet by only agreeing to terms that are understandable.

We ban all sorts of contracts - you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't agree to commit a crime. So what's wrong with voting with our actual vote, instead?

Especially since I'm interested in protecting not just myself, but other people who might not realize how much this potentially disadvantages them.