Call it hyperbole, but in light of the last few days Facebook revelations, these terms of service contracts are suddenly quite interesting. On one hand, this one at least, is written in marketing speech and legalese, switching narrative voices frequently, salesperson telling us how thrilled they are about entering a legally binding agreement with us, smoothly segueing to lawyer explaining to us, without a glimmer of salesperson's self-awareness, the lopsided agreement that has both salesperson and lawyer so frickin thrilled.
I hope we are rapidly approaching the day of reckoning where these types of agreements are actively struck down as categorically irrelevant. Claiming up front, complete lack of obligation or blame for anything negative that may ensue from the use of, and the claim to exclusive rights to anything positive that may ensue from the use of, your software, is bogus, at least in the manner these terms of service do it. If you really claim all of these things, and want anyone to believe your marketing spiel about enthusiasm for legal arrangements, print it on a T-shirt, and go tell the world about it. Don't bombard me with marketing, and then take me off in a corner and get me to sign away any rights just as I've decided to use your product.
I don't advocate for companies being defenseless, but it seems to me that this imbalance of culpability, and ownership rights, if they truly exist as the terms of service claims, might inspire the type of hubris that leads to what we see being revealed today.
If the United States judicial system is so terrible that you aren't willing to subject yourself to it in matters concerning your behavior, fix the judicial system. Don't run to some parallel system you've captured simply by sophistication lent by your resources.