I wouldn't think that they can change a contract mid way through without express consent. Maybe they're hoping it's small enough that no one will lawyer up?
That's a pretty big assumption on Hacker News.
IMHO this ought to be illegal, but in USA it's called "the free market" and worshipped as an idol. Whoever is richer is more powerful and sets the terms of the contract (this is called "bargaining power"). The prevailing ideology deems all this perfectly just and fair, because everyone has the option to refuse to deal. The fact that trying to negotiate better terms means living as a hermit in the wilderness is unmentionable.
Actually if the TOS says that then it voids the TOS, as it's no longer a valid contract.
It is illegal in the US for a company (or the customer) to unilaterally change the terms at any time. If either party to a contract attempts to change the terms, the other side can simply refuse to accept the new terms. In such case, the original contract will continue on until its original termination date/event.
In sum, changes to a contract are only valid if both parties agree to it.
That is, and has been, the law of the US and English-speaking countries for hundreds of years.
They would be highly unlikely to order specific performance here, since money damages would compensate.
Plus, you know, years of fighting plus legal costs :)
If the original contract didn't have the "we can change the terms anytime" term, then what you say would be true, and if one party then attempted to change the terms unilaterally later it would, theoretically, be unable to enforce the new terms on the customer. But my point was that in the original contract with the provider, there is a provision that, in order for you, the customer, to obtain the service, you have to agree to the contract term* which says that the company is allowed to unilaterally change the terms anytime, but the customer cannot do similarly. Then the company can impose any subsequent changes and the new version becomes legally binding.
You may imagine this can't be true, but if you have a credit card, read the "fine print" and it's in there.
That original provision, i.e. having to allow the vendor's unilateral power as a condition of dealing with the company, is what I was saying ought to be illegal, but in fact the whole economy today runs on this sort of "soft coercion" based on differences in bargaining power.
The point of my comment was thata unilateral change in a contract is not possible. A contract term that allows one party to unilaterally change the contract terms is not enforceable unless the changes occur within a pre-specified range of possibilities or fixed rubric (i.e., for example, allowing a farmer to changes prices in reference to publicly traded corn futures).
You may imagine this can't be true, but if you have a credit card, read the "fine print" and it's in there.
Not only am I aware that those terms are there, but I've helped people get out of some very large bills because* those terms were there (in these instances, rendering most of the bills uncollectable as a matter of equity).