This sounds like a jab at people that are raising this as a concern. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

What I've seen is that lawyers or anyone drafting agreements generally likes to overstate their position, or put another way take as much as they can get away with. It's rarely done with explicit malicious intent, more with negotiation in mind. Ask for more than you want and then go back and forth to arrive at something that works.

It's just sort of an added bonus if people agree with the terms.

So anyway, it's incumbent on those negotiating and agreeing to contracts to read what they're signing up for and discuss to arrive at an actual agreement that serves everybody. What happened in the discussion above is actually a great example of that happening, even if it was inadvertent.

And this is NOT self evident boilerplate. It's quite the opposite, and I do not believe any company would get a product out without reviewing the T&C.

So, the terms were at least approved by some, and are now being revised because somebody pointed the problems out in a public forum.