Nilay Patel

In arbitration, there was recently a case like Disney said to somebody trying to sue them in a theme park.

You signed the arbitration agreement for Disney+.

Like we're going to arbitration.

That's pretty one-sided.

That form does not belong to both parties equally.

Right.

And that imbalance seems like where the loss of trust, at least in the consumer side that I cover so much, comes from.

How do you make sure, even as a nonprofit, that the party that is paying for and driving the system doesn't make sure the automated system, in particular the automated system, doesn't favor them over time?

Because that's a pretty easy outcome to start programming in.

As you can tell, I'm fascinated.

The reason I keep poking at this, our readers at The Verge, like every other consumer in modernity, you just live a life of signing contracts.

You don't get to negotiate those contracts, but you literally cannot participate in society without having signed dozens upon dozens of arbitration agreements.

And I hear you say we have to get it right.

We can't get it wrong.

What is the mechanism of getting it wrong and then being forced to change when no one can negotiate the contract that landed them in arbitration in the first place?

Do you know what I mean?

Like if there's some public accountability that's like the AAA got everything wrong for a year with the AI system, then what?

Because I can't go to all of my service providers and say I don't want to use the AAA anymore.

I saw this news report.

In the construction case, right, you've got two parties and presumably they've contracted for the sale of lumber.