Lemmy isn't a single website like reddit.com is. It's rather a collection of decentralised servers ("instances") offering the same service (one very similar to reddit). It's often compared to e-mail - just as Gmail users can talk to Outlook users, lemmy.world users can post and comment on lemmy.ml from their home instance.

What this does is it removes the centralised aspects of Reddit - if a community has powertripping mods one can make an alternate community (like on Reddit). But this goes a step above - powertripping server admins can be reigned in by simply switching instances.

Depends on their methodology. Sure, a huge proportion of those are users who haven't heard of uBO, but we're forgetting a lot of caveats:

1. Electron exists and lots of apps are built on top of it and identify as "Chrome". Judging by the numbers most have been weeded out, but some edge cases do visit more sites so they end up in the count.
2. A lot of workplaces mandate the browser, which is often Chrome. This also gets counted.
3. A not insignificant amount of Firefox users change their useragent to Chrome.

All of these skew the numbers towards Chrome. Some Chrome users use a different adblocker which lowers the uBO statistic.

"The browser built to be piping your data into our hands"

There, fixed.

Gee, thanks!

It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.

Why would it be rasonable? Did the tatoo artist do what is (keyword:) reasonable on their end to ensure that doesn't happen? Did they make information about tatoo ink allergies known to their customers? Do they advise their customers about the allergies? Do they use FDA approved tatoo inks?

It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.

Did the streaming service clearly for example cause magnetic interference and was ruled as a large contributor to the disaster? If yes, then it's reasonable.

Whatever scenatio you think of, there's always room for liability. Some, nay, mlst of it's far-fetched, but not impossible.

However there's at least one thing that's never reasonable, and that's arbitration itself. Arbitration is someone making a decition which can't be amended after it's made. It can't be appealed. New evidence coming to light after-the-fact means nothing. Arvbitration is absolute.

Arbitration doesn't allow complaint. The judgement is final.

Which is fucking ridiculous.

Let's return to your two claims of unreasonability:

It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.

It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.

There's nothing stopping a normal court from fairly making a judgement. It can be appealed, which is fine.

What isn't fine is giving a company, or a like-minded court sole and absolute jurisdictions over suits against a company by its users. And above that, making said judgements unappealable.

To paraphrase you: there has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying facts of the case covered. Some claims are clearly ubsubstantiated. Some, however, are clearly substantiated and if the service provider knows and understands that, they would accept the jurisdiction of the court system without carveouts grossly in their favour.

Honestly, isn't them invoking the arbitration clause a direct admission of guilt? Had they just came to court and said "we have nothing to do with it" they might've just gotten away with it. Like this, they literally drag themselves into the suit and say you can't sue me. Not a good look.

Something very close to Mozilla in my opinion. They'd have the browser as their core product, a few more apps as a logical extension of that (maybe a mail client like Thubderbird), perhaps Chrome Inc would inherit google's office suite? That would be a breath of fresh air. Maybe revive a few of Google's killed ventures that seemed more than promising.

It's hardly ubiversally popular - anyone seeling a aubscription will lobby against this, and banks are traditionally one of the biggest lobbies, only smaller than perhaps pharma and military suppliers.

Thank you for the clarification, as I said, there are exceptions which are few and far between for the rule, with this being a huge carveout I missed - selling physical goods is exempt.

But if you want to pay for in-game goods (subscriptions, gems, skins, whatever) or an app outright Apple takes 30%. I know they charge Netflix the 30% for their subscriptions, but wonder about e.g. tickets/passes for transit.

Apple takes a 30% cut from almost all transactions made within all apps installed from the App Store (which is literally all of them) and you're not allowed to advertise e.g. a website to avoid the tax. Patreon rightly passes the 30% onto consumers, as should all apps. Regardless of their own bad practices, Apple needs to be held accountable.

I wonder how credible Media bias factcheck itself is if they claim the NY Times is left-wing biased and more credible than the Guardian

It's history they want to repeat, not the present they want to accept