1 page is plenty long to bury unconscionable landmines in, especially for the party controlling UX. Until courts are ready to legislate UX, the better approach is to legislatively augment the court's "soft" power to void contracts that a reasonable person would "sign" without reading. Vague as hell, yes, but it fixes the incentive landscape without leaving obvious loopholes: longer and harder to read = more enforcement risk.

Also, this principle already exists and has a decent track record. Which is why my lease is 3 pages long, simple, and relatively landmine-free (I had to initial key clauses) while my iTunes contract is 50 page long, impenetrable, and landmine rich. The principle just needs to be strengthened & applied in the tech world.

Eh, the "vague as hell" is a huge problem. If I'm reading a contract trying to figure out my recourse and it has a bunch of unconscionable terms, then I've got to confidently know enough general legal information and applicable case law to realize what's on the paper in front of me is utter bullshit. Most likely I am going to be dissuaded from escalating (lawyer or small claims) thinking I simply have no case. Perhaps if there were punitive damages for unconscionable terms (which seems appropriate as they're essentially maliciously wrong legal advice).

I'd agree, but I'm also pretty sure that it'll be a long and trying uphill battle requiring decades of waiting and several large scandals just to get the judiciary to the point of throwing them out. But I guess we can hope :)

It's simply a symptom of the wider problem that is a scourge of all our lives:

- states are on the side of corporations not the people

The farmer has never been "on the side" of the pigs and cattle. In precise analogy, the state has never been "on the side" of the people.

Wow, not many history buffs here on HN. Lots of credulous junior-high civics students, though.

It's a bit more that the "the state is the enemy" line rapidly devolves to standard Libertarian bullshit.

Power begets power. Good power structures redirect that concentration and redistribute power, wealth, and means of production. The question of how to go about doing this is older than civilisation, most recent example I've come up with is from a history of Caesar Augustus, addressing the optimates and populares.

Former are oligarches, latter proles.

Guess which side's plank was "strict property rights and no debt forgivenss", and which was "structured bankruptcies, land redistribution, and affordable grain"?

It's the same strict propertarian vs. living-wage argument we're having today.