3 ms·

"For comparison, here are the scores for some classic texts. Only Immanuel Kant’s famously difficult “Critique of Pure Reason” registers a more challenging read

"For comparison, here are the scores for some classic texts. Only Immanuel Kant’s famously difficult “Critique of Pure Reason” registers a more challenging readability score than Facebook’s privacy policy. (To calculate their reading time, I measured the first chapter of each text.) " I'm feeling an interesting mix of laughter and sadness. How can you not laugh at the ridiculousness of a privacy policy being less legible than "Criqiue of Pure Reason"? How can you not feel a tinge of sadness at the state of the world when this is not only acceptable, but expected? Yet, it doesn't surprise me that privacy policies are generally hot garbage. And that's sad too.

testplzignore 7y ago
The real measuring stick of readability should be The Silmarillion :) There are plenty of ways privacy policies are bad, but I think the reading scores NYT is using from Lexile are a bogus criticism. From a reading length and vocabulary perspective, I don't see anything in the Facebook privacy policy that I wouldn't expect a high school student to be able to comprehend. My main criticism of privacy policies is that, after reading them, you realize that there is practically no upper bound on how your data can actually be used. You give the company a key to your house, and it is up to them to decide if they want to trash the place.
- fmajid 7y ago
  I read the Silmarillion when I was 11. It's hardly challenging reading like dense and opaque German philosophy texts tend to be (I am looking at you, Wittgenstein).
  - danaris 7y ago
    Agreed. The Silmarillion's language isn't simple, but it is lyrical, and is intended to evoke great epics in its style. I think the most uncharitable thing you can say about it is that it reads somewhat like the King James Bible.
    - fmajid 7y ago
      Right, and unlike those philosophy texts, there is actually a payoff for the reader.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  >I don't see anything in the Facebook privacy policy that I wouldn't expect a high school student to be able to comprehend. I think, vocabulary wise, yes. High school students should be able to read each word. The problem is context and impact. Can the reader not only read the words, but understand them in the context of the entire document as well as in the context of their usage? For example: >"[...]we collect information from and about the computers, phones, connected TVs and other web-connected devices you use that integrate with our Products, and we combine this information across different devices that you use." The words are easy to read. The meaning, however, is not. Most people don't take the time to learn how severe of an impact aggregating data has. It seems harmless to share two pieces of non-PII, until you learn that two pieces of non-PII may become PII when aggregated. The test by Lexile claims to measure complexity, not just the legibility. However, I haven't looked into the test that much and don't have an opinion on its accuracy. That said, I don't think the average person can _understand_ the documents, even if they can read the words - which is the same conclusion reached in the parent article: >"Even policies that are shorter and easier to read can be impenetrable, given the amount of background knowledge required to understand how things like cookies and IP addresses play a role in data collection."

testplzignore 7y ago

The real measuring stick of readability should be The Silmarillion :) There are plenty of ways privacy policies are bad, but I think the reading scores NYT is using from Lexile are a bogus criticism. From a reading length and vocabulary perspective, I don't see anything in the Facebook privacy policy that I wouldn't expect a high school student to be able to comprehend. My main criticism of privacy policies is that, after reading them, you realize that there is practically no upper bound on how your data can actually be used. You give the company a key to your house, and it is up to them to decide if they want to trash the place.

fmajid 7y ago
I read the Silmarillion when I was 11. It's hardly challenging reading like dense and opaque German philosophy texts tend to be (I am looking at you, Wittgenstein).
- danaris 7y ago
  Agreed. The Silmarillion's language isn't simple, but it is lyrical, and is intended to evoke great epics in its style. I think the most uncharitable thing you can say about it is that it reads somewhat like the King James Bible.
  - fmajid 7y ago
    Right, and unlike those philosophy texts, there is actually a payoff for the reader.
ziddoap 7y ago
>I don't see anything in the Facebook privacy policy that I wouldn't expect a high school student to be able to comprehend. I think, vocabulary wise, yes. High school students should be able to read each word. The problem is context and impact. Can the reader not only read the words, but understand them in the context of the entire document as well as in the context of their usage? For example: >"[...]we collect information from and about the computers, phones, connected TVs and other web-connected devices you use that integrate with our Products, and we combine this information across different devices that you use." The words are easy to read. The meaning, however, is not. Most people don't take the time to learn how severe of an impact aggregating data has. It seems harmless to share two pieces of non-PII, until you learn that two pieces of non-PII may become PII when aggregated. The test by Lexile claims to measure complexity, not just the legibility. However, I haven't looked into the test that much and don't have an opinion on its accuracy. That said, I don't think the average person can _understand_ the documents, even if they can read the words - which is the same conclusion reached in the parent article: >"Even policies that are shorter and easier to read can be impenetrable, given the amount of background knowledge required to understand how things like cookies and IP addresses play a role in data collection."