Please give me some feedback in a discussion form on this post, would love your thoughts and expertise?

The rise of binding arbitration clauses can be contributed to its many benefits, such as lower costs, quicker conflict resolution, and increased privacy for all parties involved. I personally believe that the rise of binding arbitration clauses is a net positive for society as a whole. I think that it allows for a quick, less$-$costly conflict settlement. While there are many opposing viewpoints on the use of arbitration clauses, I do believe that companies can use arbitration clauses to their benefit, as well as the customer's benefit. I also agree with the decision of the courts to honor arbitration clauses, except in the case of employment contracts. I do believe that employees should get to decide wether arbitration is the best course of action in conflict against a large corporation, and should be allowed to pursue class action, if they so choose. I also think that in the case of business to business arbitration, the courts should allow the businesses to decide for themselves whether arbitration is the best course of action or should file class action. In every sense, I believe that arbitration can be very beneficial to conflict resolution for all parties, should they all agree upon this route. Consumers do not have any options when presented with an arbitration clause from a larger business, except negotiating terms of the contract $($which is unlikely to be successful$),$ or not signing the agreement and forfeiting their contractual agreement, whether it be a credit card or a simple online purchase. I do agree with Kentucky's laws on arbitration clauses, excluding employee contracts from being permitted to include arbitration clauses. I think that large companies are allowing themselves to have the "easy way out" when they include an arbitration clause in an employment contact.