I don’t know about the US, but here in Canada, we still have the one stipulation that makes these TOS contracts worthless – “informed consent”. Without informed consent, they can’t bind you to the revised clauses.

That’s why I still have “unlimited”, even though Bell has gone through dozens of TOS changes since I first signed up.

1. All of these so-called “contracts” we sign — not just online, but everywhere else — usually contain some clause to the effect that ONE party (them) can change the terms at any time WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE. See the problem? No matter how many different iterations of a given “contract” the EFF assembles for something like this, the corporations using such contracts are legally permitted to keep changing them at whim, on a second-by-second basis, in principle.

I submit that the “with or without notice” provision effectively nullifies the fundamental basis and purpose of contract-law, itself:
Contractual agreements presuppose that both parties — at least theoretically — know the conditions of the contract (which implies, at the very least, that any change should require “notice”).

Nice gimmick for the EFF, but it doesn’t address the fundamental issue involved: “with or without notice” provisions make a mockery of contract-law itself.

In the same vein, protests against particular instances of corporate malfeasance do nothing to address the basic problem, which is corporations AS SUCH — with their limited liability, legal “personhood”, and profit-seeking at all costs, human/social/environmental “externalities” notwithstanding.

Anything short of that, is just nibbling at the edges.

Companies like Facebook and Google don’t give a toss about our privacy.