Short summary: If the license says something that is enforceable in court, odds are super good that you can't get it removed with anything short of an activist campaign. [
... ] If the license says something that is not enforceable in court, why should you care at the outset?
And just how the fsck am I supposed to know which is which? Is litigation of every $(GOD)-damned term necessary to determine validity? And why is the onus on me to prove the term is bullshit? It seems to me that a "contract" that purports to absolve the vendor of any and all responsibility for defects in their product, and then further forces the consumer to give up their right to file suit in a state or Federal court, or be a member of a class action, and instead be compelled into neutral (ha ha) arbitration, would be unenforceable. But, lo and behold, they've been deemed valid. And all this comes into existence by merely clicking an on-screen button.
In other words, a vendor can impose an onerous, heavy-handed, one-sided contract on someone via little more than merest assertion.
...And you, as a professional working in this space, haven't got the slightest problem with this?