#cw #content-warning #longpost #nsfw

This is a repost of something I had written up about a year ago, back when keybored.me was humhub { https://www.humhub.org/en }. I've revisited this, and the github issues page I mention has gotten SPICY in the last few days { https://github.com/keybase/client/issues/6374 }. The keybase team is especially resistant to releasing the server-side software under any free license. There is no change in my concerns regarding forced arbitration.
----------------------------
Can we take a few to talk about binding arbitration agreements and "open source" projects?

Binding arbitration has been something I've been watching creep more and more into all Terms of Service I've agreed to - and even more I've declined. They're usually buried deep in the terms, often near the end - but almost never AT the end. Sometimes they offer an opt-out, usually via a complicated write-in snail-mail method. They're often conducted by ADR [https://www.adr.org/]

It's clear they're reaching an ubiquity - more often than not I'm agreeing to one or declining a service due to this clause. I've even been seeing the process portrayed in popular media - see Silicon Valley S02E09, or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia S12E06 for examples.
But why is this an issue that keeps me up at night? You are agreeing to give up your right to a court in case of any harm done by the company. In the TV shows mentioned above, this is actually portrayed as a good thing. Courts are an ordeal, they say. Arbitration is more one vs. one, more efficient. This is indeed how ADR spins their services. But there are a few things to consider, namely that the right to a trial by jury is essential and in the Bill of Rights. Waiving it should not be taken lightly, especially where online services are increasingly central to folk's lives. I should not even have to say that the only way an individual wronged can even feign to have equal footing versus even a medium-sized company, nevermind multinational corporation, in dispute resolution is collective action in a court of law.
In some circumstances, it might make sense. I'm still unconvinced of any case where I'd be okay waiving that right - the idea of an individual going up against a corporation that is contracting the very juror is {kafkaesque, dystopian, absurd}. But I'm willing to concede that an individual with full understanding of arbitration vs court has the right to sign such a clause.

Which brings me to what instigated this post - Keybase {https://keybase.io/}. I have no reason to believe these developers are bad actors. Indeed, they sure seem inticing with their software and branding. And, hey! Right there on their front page
For the geeks among us: it's open source and powered by public-key cryptography

Then you're ready to sign up - and at the terms of service, you must sign a Binding Arbitration clause.

In many ways, the free software movement has anticipated this - there are many actors that do not wish their users have full freedom, whether software freedom or freedoms enshrined in such documents as the bill of rights. And there has always been that contention of open-source vs free/libre. This is just another example.
The Binding Arbitration was just the start of my sleuthing - once you start digging around their GitHub repositories, you'll find only the client and client-side implementation of the filesystem are open source (3-Clause BSD. A fine license, even if I prefer the GPL.) I understand there are difficulties in open-sourcing backend server software, but I also do not see plans to open it up, nor discussion around it. There is one "self-hosted" mention in the guthub issues, but it does not look like it's going to be replied to by the main keybase staff.

Ah, well, the search continues for neat encrytped libre projects.