So something I am curious about with the response/reaction to the Jonathan Majors trial and I am curious where I might be wrong.

I never trusted the trial. but then again, I also know he might well be guilty of assaulting his ex-girlfriend Grace Jabbari. What always bothered me was the difference in how Jonathan Majors got treated compared to someone like Shia LaBeouf or Ezra Miller.

Shia has openly admitted to the fact that he had inner demons that he is struggling with and that he was abusive to his ex-girlfriend. He never really got "cancelled" by Hollywood (whether or not he deserved to be cancelled is another story) and he never faced a trial as far as I can tell.

Ezra Miller has had a laundry list of scandals and controversy and was apparently caught on camera assaulting people. No real publicized trial or anything (not that I think a publicized trial is good but it's what happened to Jonathan Majors). and I feel like social media didn't really come for Ezra like how it did for Jonathan Majors (again, I don't think social media should come for either individual but the difference in how they were treated seemed weird to me). I am not sure if Ezra has been "cancelled" by Hollywood. They hasn't really been in anything, so it might be Hollywood cancelling them or just not willing to take a chance on them or they're focusing on themself.

All three man apparently assaulted other people. One of them on camera, but only the black guy faced a very publicized trial over it. What's more, Majors was accused of assaulting a white woman so it made me feel like the odds were stacked against him even more with regards to getting a fair trail due to the racial undertones.

I will admit, I am not totally plugged into social media (I had no idea about the 6 7 meme until it made an appearance on South Park), I try to avoid staying away from it as I find it toxic to mental health (the extent to which YouTube shoved the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trail down my throat even though I didn't search for it and had no interest in seeing a women being served up on a platter for all the misogynists online who were damn near ready to say she was basically the anti-Christ scared me) but it just felt to me like there was much more furor behind the Majors trail than Miller or LaBeouf and it always made me distrust the pronouncement of guilty even though I also know he might well be actually guilty of assaulting his ex-gf.

Did I misread the situation?

For clarity, a mandatory arbitration agreement is when a consumer or customer must "agree to have their case reviewed by a third party—called an arbitrator—and to be bound by the arbitrator's decision." The intent is that you waive your right to sue (in a regular court of law) the party you're entering this agreement with. But these agreements can, in some cases, be ruled as invalid by a court. The examples I've seen apply to the US, but I'd be interested in examples from other countries.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been noticing how out of hand it's becoming to see these statements plastered in Terms of Service and several other locations.

The most newsworthy example recently was Disney claiming that a statement like this in their Disney+ ToS also applied to a wrongful death case on one of their properties. As the linked article says, they backpedaled on this, but it's still disgusting and disturbing they even tried it in the first place.

The most recent example I've seen is this post on Mastodon where it was included on the packaging of a supplement.

I can't help but wonder if this is just a way to deter people from seeking litigation in the first place, especially if they aren't wealthy enough to hire a legal team that could poke holes in the legitimacy of their mandatory arbitration agreement.

I'm sure there's a nearly endless supply of examples of this, especially in software service agreements. But is there anything that can be done about it? Or is this just one more way corporations get to have more power than people that won't ever change?

I've had part of this discussion today with a work colleague: under our country's laws a judge (there's no jury) may take into consideration the condition and general being of a victim of a crime when judging the perpetrator. For example an conviction of assault and battery may be higher of the victim was disabled/had a fragile constitution compared to a more "normative" able-bodied person.

My colleague maintained that this was unfair if there is no way the perpetrator realizes the victim's fragility, as it means unequal punishment for equal actions. Specifically he takes issue with the Eggshell Skull rule. In effect his argument seemed to be that what should be judged is the action and intent of the crime itself.

I maintained that is was fair because the judgement should be proportional to the effect caused on the world.

What do other users think?