@Viss I appreciate the point, but don't agree with the premise, because the language of consent is misapplied. 1) many of the most abusive apps today provide truly necessary function with no opt-out, if only due to network effect. 2) TOS are unfair, incomprehensible, change every week
@Viss So: I don't believe a contract with wildly unfair terms applied to society at large can be considered valid. But if it were valid, it is still be misunderstood. And if it was somehow understood, it was still certainly signed under duress--out of necessity rather than consent.
@Viss This is the long way of saying you can't hold the world at ransom and then claim, because every six year-old "agreed to survive," that they are bound by the hilarious unequal and exploitative terms they signed under duress. I say no, that is not consent.
