Earlier quoted context omitted.
this doesn't make it sound any better unfortunately. perhaps i might be unpopular in saying this, but he should just click the fuck through. either you want to spend your time getting stuff done, or spend your time prevaricating about the bush.
This is exactly how freedoms are signed away.
Ask yourself this: If I post a piece of software on the internet, and on page 57 of the 132 page license agreement there is a provision that says you have to pay me $150,000 every time there is a lunar eclipse, what do you think as a policy matter that a court should do when there is a lunar eclipse and I file a lawsuit for non-payment in breach of contract against a million people who have used my app? Order them all to pay me $150,000 each? If so I think I have a new business model.
Attaching license terms to the use of software is problematic. When the terms are minor and unobjectionable then they're meaningless, because pretty much nobody is going to go through the trouble of litigation over the matter of someone lying about their age on a dating website, and what would be the remedy in that case anyway? Any terms significant enough to be worth enforcing in court are almost certain to be shocking or unreasonable, like requirements to pay money under unexpected circumstances or attempts to limit the rights the user has under copyright law.
More than that, we all know that 99% of users never read the damn things, and they never will. How can it be reasonable to enforce terms against someone who everybody admits never understood the terms?