They are still right about EULAs. The terms and style of negotiation are "we do what we want and change things when we feel like it, and you check accept or stop using the software," and guess what that implies about using the software - they do what they want and change stuff when they feel like it and you accept it or stop using the software.

Contrast that to the open source pattern of making the license a header in the source files. You interact with the license by making common sense assumptions unless you need to know a detail, in which case you open a source file. Likewise you interact with the software by running on common assumptions unless you need to know a detail, in which case you open a source file.

I agree that, from the user perspective, I'd prefer if all of the software terms and EULAs I sign online were more favorable to me.

But I think it's a major overstatement to say you'll save yourself a headache by not agreeing to one-sided terms. They are literally everywhere. This very website we're posting on right includes these terms in its terms of service:

We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change or modify portions of these Terms of Use at any time.

YOU WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED TO PURSUE CLAIMS AGAINST Y COMBINATOR ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER

Y Combinator reserves the right to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Site (or any part thereof) with or without notice.

Y Combinator reserves the right to investigate and take appropriate legal action against anyone who, in Y Combinator’s sole discretion, violates this provision, including without limitation, removing the offending content from the Site, suspending or terminating the account of such violators and reporting you to the law enforcement authorities.

Indeed. This is the classic hole in the economics argument about market forces. You can easily set up a game theory model of the prisoner's dilemma with many players, in which the payoff from deviating is so small that "everyone colludes" becomes a stable equilibrium.

I’d be a little more worried about HN’s terms and conditions if I had to pay to use the site. There’s a world of difference between someone (or a company) who is providing a free service attempting to shield themselves from expensive litigation and generally insisting the free service be as hassle-free for them to run as possible and a a company charging me money for a product or service and putting these kinds of one-sided terms in a EULA.

>They've told you how they do business the first time — believe them the first time.

I'm agreeing more with that than the idea that there are no good nonmutual commercial interactions.

I'm obviously not talking about click wrap agreements; I'm talking about in-person negotiations.

The click-wrap "agreements" are all bullsh*t "adhesion contracts", and in that context are virtually unenforceable.

That said, yes, I will strongly prefer to work with software that doesn't have such nonsense when possible. E.g., I've used LibreOffice for decades to avoid M$ office (which I can also watch family & friends who are stuck from work just become increasingly annoyed at how bad it gets — strong correlation).

And yes, I do save myself a LOT of trouble by avoiding online-only or unnecessarily online software, keeping as much as possible to locally-running software. No, I'm not going to use your online project management, or charting, or whatever, unless I can get a direct benefit from the online aspect that is not otherwise available (e.g., simultaneous team editing, etc.)

If they are making an obvious effort to tie your hands, it is because they lack the confidence that their product is good enough to willingly keep using it. Once again, you should believe them the first time they tell you.

Microsoft with the dollar sign, M$. How clever! Bet you had a ton of karma on Slashdot

That's a name I haven't heard in a very long time....

(as in I haven't been on or even thought about Slashdot for well over a decade. But, apparently, in your limited world, someone cannot use a common vernacular to maybe help make a point without being accused of karma-whoring, which is clearly what is on top of your mind. You really think your comment adds value to the discussion; if so, how?)

The thing about online service agreements is they have pretty much zero leverage against you. So what if you violate their little terms of service? Worst they can do is ban your account. Their "take it or leave it" bullshit holds no water.

This depends on the nature of the transactions you're performing.

For example, play that game with Paypal.... whoopsie, they're holding a quarter million of your cash and aren't going to let it go for six months. Of course where this much is at stake reading those agreements is very important.

But take a middle ground. You join a forum and make a side business where you're selling some kind of product to their members. This gets more problematic very fast. It can be nearly impossible to pull your business out of the forum it's embedded in. And this is the exact kind of behaviors we've seen out of large companies like Facebook. They can choose how they please to access 'their' users.

Of course. If you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in a PayPal account, they have the highest possible leverage over you: they are literally holding your money. If you have a Steam account with hundreds of video games on it and an estimated value of tens of thousands of dollars, you're obviously not going to screw around and risk getting banned. Once money has exchanged hands, it becomes serious business.

There's no reason to care about some random blog or forum's terms of service though. Block their ads and surveillance capitalism all you want, they can do nothing.

don't bother with a cell phone either. the world is full of stupid contracts with unenforceable terms. sign it without reading and save yourself the headache.