I’m slightly surprised that the same rot has spread into areas where there’s a lawyer on both sides of the table.
At the low end it’s apparently impolite to call the contracts of adhesion by such blunt and hurtful names; but there certainly isn’t any pressure against the tendency to just keep making them bigger and more opaque(and often adding alarming bits after the user’s eyes have glazed over).
You really have to go nuts to achieve a contract that will actually get nuked in court, not that most customers even have the resources to get it there(even if you hadn’t added the arbitration clause, which you probably have); and those sorts of contracts are very much offered on a take it or leave it basis; not as an invitation to negotiate.
Under those circumstances you might as well be overtly unhelpful; but in cases where the contract is expected to be read and potentially negotiated one would think that there would be more attention paid to having it not be nonsensical in sections.
