> the only thing that matters are contracts.

even those don't matter. The only thing that actually matters are the consequences.

And the consequences are quite asymmetric.

If you rub a Big Tech company the wrong way, they will disable your account and dramatically alter your online life.

But if they pull the floor from under your feet, you have no practical recourse, maybe a complaint on Hacker News.

You can complain to a developer in the company you follow on twitter. It's a perfect system! /s

the first amendment to the US Constitution says:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

can you explain how this should apply to "large corporations with massive network effects." would the other sections of the first amendment apply to private corps such that they couldn't deny medical coverage based on the corporation’s religious views?

If corporations effectively become governments, then the amendment should apply.

What are the criteria for determining if a corporation is "effectively a government"?

Maybe if their revenue exceeds those of many governments.

That really doesn't seem like a good test for determining whether we remove a company's first amendment right not to distribute speech it doesn't want to.

The New York Times has revenue greater than the tax revenue of a few dozen nations. Should the government force the New York Times to carry any editorial anyone submits?

If corporations become governments, they can make their own laws?

They already do, just hidden under the guise of lobbying and marketing.

I think these sister comments are missing the point that contracts in general lead to consequences - that's what OP means by 'the only thing that matters are contracts', as in you can't trust their promise unless they actually sign a contract that says they won't do <x>. This has nothing to do with the EULA.

Once again even that doesn't mean anything. Companies will absolutely weight the benefit of breaking a contract against not breaking it. If the company decides it is worth it, they will.

If they break a contract you can sue, that leads to consequences.

When every EULA in existence contains a "despite everything we just said, we can actually just do whatever we want if we decide we want to" clause, why would you expect a contract to be binding in any meaningful way? Companies this big simply won't enter contracts that could potentially cause real damage if broken.

And good look suing a company with billions of dollars. Even with a strong case and good lawyers, they will drag out the process and all the court costs will make it impossible to finish, unless you also have billions of dollars.

Except the contract says "we may need to update these Terms from time to time to accurately reflect our services and practices.".

Do you have the same liberty to change the terms? No. You are free to stop using the service.

not all consequences are equal thou

which are usually less than amount of profit generated.