Legislators are there to directly reflect the opinions and interests of their constituents, judges are there to have expert knowledge of the law and how it applies to each case uniquely. The first needs some form of democratic mechanism to ensure that they represent people’s current opinions, the later needs a meritocratic mechanism to ensure they are experts in the correct fields.

If judges were the only element of a court I would agree that it would be problematic to have no democratic input, but in common law systems at least that element is represented by juries who are the most powerful element of a court case as they are unchallengable arbiters of fact and drawn through sortition which is even more democratic than election.

Judges shouldnt be elected for the same reasons surgeons shouldnt be elected.

They tried that method with the steam machines, it didnt work. A bunch of companies put out half arsed cash in versions and it went nowhere. By putting Valve’s whole weight behind one platform that they tested extensively they got a great product that has made waves. Opening it up now that it has momentum makes sense, but they absolutely made the right call making the steam deck the focus rather than making it hardware agnostic.

The whole forced arbitration is bad enough, but retroactively enforcing it on something you already own while deliberately making it difficult to opt out just seems like its begging to fall foul of anti-consumer rules. The whole “this applies to the extent that its not really fucking illegal” clause just makes it seem like an intimidation tactic rather than actually something they think they have any chance of enforcing if it came to it.

Is this actually meaningful in any way or is it just the corporate equivalent of positive manifestation? Surely no court would take seriously an after the fact imposition of you waiving your rights by default unless you send a physical letter to them informing them you disagree with losing your right to sue (for no gain on your part).