You can certainly be of the opinion that these contracts are by definition dishonest, and there are definitely companies that do shady things and protect themselves with these types of contracts. But I think that there have to be at least some examples of services that are honest that still need these types of protections.

Imagine a service that is objectively good -- maybe a non-profit organization creates a free app to help connect homeless people with food, shelter, and potential employment opportunities. Businesses can then use the app to post jobs, etc. The non-profit runs on a shoe-string budget and certainly cannot afford to get caught up in litigation related to issues arising between users of the app (e.g., a homeless user upset that they did not get a job because a bug in the app lost their application, or a business upset because they were connected with a dishonest applicant). It seems fair that the non-profit should be able to limit its liability here.

You have a really good point about deceptive businesses and the importance of transparency and balancing the power between businesses and consumers. It is bad that shady businesses can be protected by contracts, but those contracts also protect good businesses. I honestly do not know what the solution is, but I personally think that eliminating contracts is less useful than strong consumer protection legislation like stronger privacy laws.