511
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
511 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
84222 readers
5114 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not necessarily.
A contract is supposed to be a mutually-beneficial arrangement. I sell you a car for its market value. I work for you for a market price on my time for the position and my expertise.
If there's a small mistake both sides are willing to amend - there probably won't even be a suit.
Even if there is a suit, most places' laws prefer nudging toe contract to the side "less off" in such cases.
Only when there are unreasonable demands by one side, or the contract is so one-sided it can't be amended is when it gets thrown out completely.
Which is supposed to be almost never.
Therefore, I don't think the rules themselves changed as much as the goalposts and the reasonableness window have. Quality of life and purchase power is decreasing steadily basically since Reagan.
Contemporary EULAs are taken as acceptable and a fact of life when even 10 years ago T&Cs were laughed at which were much less unreasonable in comparison.
Other types of contracts follow the same general direction, with employment ones being among the absolute worst.