I think perhaps I didn't explain my perspective very well. I'm not saying I don't think you should have to pay for products, just that when it comes to the idea that every party to a contract should receive "consideration" (that everyone gets something from the deal) I don't think the "right" to pay someone to use their service should be considered consideration. I may be completely off base on my opinion on that, but to me it feels like this isn't a contract because one party is dictating terms to another party and the only consideration the one party is being given is the "right" to purchase a service.

The fact that no one is stopping you from hiring a lawyer to explain the T&C doesn't somehow help the inferred assertion that we should consider this a valid and enforceable contract. Personal responsibility is valid and important, but I would assert that government recognition and enforcement of contracts is in fact a threat of violence in the indirect governmental sense. If I don't honor the contract you can secure a judgement against me in civil court and if I don't pay the judgement you can have the county sheriff come seize my property on your behalf. If I tried to stop the county sheriff from seizing my property, I would be on the losing end of violence.

Signing up for something doesn't imply that you understand what you're agreeing to. Contract law has historically idealized that all parties are of sound mind, that they are capable of understanding or receive the necessary help to reach that understanding, that they can read the language the contract is written in, or have a translation that's factually accurate, etc.

This isn't about competition or the free market, and fighting for libertarian principles. This is about business owners using the same governmental threat of violence that they reject with regards to regulations, to enforce one sided terms of a "contract" without any sort of meeting of the minds, consideration, or other traditional factors that go into agreements that governments are willing to enforce.

We seem to have a sliding standard of different types of contracts that have different requirements in order to be enforceable. A prenuptial agreement in many places requires that both sides have an attorney representing them, or that they at least have equal representation and equal footing. If I made a prenup in the form of a 100 page document that had no consideration for my fiancé, and had her sign it by clicking on "I agree" on a website she visited, that would be thrown out in seconds in a divorce proceeding and standard community property laws would apply.

If having a meeting of the minds, consideration for all parties, and understanding of the terms are important concepts for some kinds of contract law, why do we let business make up "business models" where they dictate all the terms, they claim you "signed" a contract through implicit actions like entering the premises or clicking "I agree", and where businesses can unilaterally update those terms at will with nothing more than notification of the other party. I mean there's really not even an effort to pretend there's an equitable relationship between the two parties of the contract.