So here are some agreements that maybe you'd actually like to enforce on other people, using the exact same technology.
1. Cloud privacy. RA and related tech let's you request a remote attestation from the cloud provider that proves your VM memory is encrypted such that the hardware provider can't read it. This means you can compute in the cloud and not be spied on, not even if the legal system in the remote jurisdiction suddenly demands it.
You might think cloud providers would never offer this but you'd be dead wrong. Both Azure and GCP offer RA in which you are the one checking them and they offer it today.
2. Blocking spamming without needing captchas or modern JavaScript based equivalents. In turn that means you can now much more easily self host email and retain control and privacy currently sacrificed to big email providers.
3. Copyleft enforcement. Yes really. It'd require toolchain integration but it's possible.
4. Eliminating backdoors inserted by cloud CI systems. They prove what compilers they're using via RA.
Etc. This is just a few examples.
And that's why your argument is frankly morally flawed. Agreements and contracts are something everyone relies on whether they realize it or not. The fix for terms you don't like is not to demand leaky enforcement but, as always, market competition. If you hate Oracle's "no publishing of benchmarks" clauses - which are by the way unenforceable with RA anyway so that's a bad example to pick - then use postgresql instead.
At any rate, it's all rather irrelevant. You have much more bargaining power than you think and that is in fact why RA has never taken off. Outside of very controlled environments like games consoles or cloud VMs it's considered too complicated and excludes too many users who don't have the right hardware etc. Consumers effectively "negotiate" by picking services compatible with what they've got.