511
Visualizing the Length of the Fine Print, for 14 Popular Apps (and books) (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 days ago by LiamTheBox@lemmy.ml to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/terms-of-service-visualizing-the-length-of-internet-agreements/

Terms of Service: The Length of Common Digital Contracts Do you take the time to read the terms of service before you agree to when downloading the latest app or software?

Of course you do…

The world is awash with apps and internet services that ask potential users to agree to a service agreement. Most people click on ‘agree’ and move on, knowing that reading the service agreements could put them to sleep and defer their favorite internet fix.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dan1101@lemmy.world 63 points 2 days ago

Good guy VLC: https://www.videolan.org/legal.html

What are the usage restrictions for VideoLAN software? Short answer: there are none. You can use the software in the way you want (within the boundary of law), for personal, educational, research, military, governmental, professional purpose or any other way…

May I redistribute a piece of VideoLAN software? Yes, you may distribute an original or a modified version of a piece of VideoLAN software as long as you comply with its license terms. Most pieces of software from VideoLAN are licensed under the GNU General Public License Version 2 (referred herein as GPL). You will find a license file named COPYING in all our products.

Note: You do not need to ask VideoLAN the permission to distribute VideoLAN software!

[-] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 days ago

That's a nice summary, but the GPLv2 is about 2500 words....

[-] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 7 points 1 day ago

it's a very clear license and it's only 1 that many softwares use, you read it once and you don't have anymore; The GPL is also just about redistribution, code changes etc etc it does not affect the final user, you only look at the license if you care about it or if you are a developer

[-] LBP321@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm surprised at the 3% of people that supposedly actually read the ToS.

[-] Zacryon@feddit.org 25 points 2 days ago

I suppose the times are reading times. Not understanding times. And especially not 'pondering about how this will fuck me in the ass one day' times.

That should be illegal.

[-] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 53 points 2 days ago

We need a new sub for "data is horrifying".

[-] nullPointer@programming.dev 55 points 2 days ago

3% people being liars seems kinda low.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 47 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Luckily clicking a checkbox is not legally binding with regard to such terms of service.
What is hidden in these terms is of course their abuse of your personal information, which probably is enough for plausible deniability.
But there's a reason these companies are regularly fined in EU, and that is that their practices are often illegal, despite they "allow themselves" to do it by their own terms.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago

Is their ToS fully legal in the US or are parts of them illegal there too?

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Do they have more money than you?
If they do, chances are you would somehow lose in court, and even if you have the spirit of the law on your side.
I wouldn't bet on consumer protection in USA, and I've seen many TOS documents that were CLEARLY illegal in EU, but legal in USA. But that was back in the 90's where I worked with parallel import of software and hardware from USA.
We were occasionally contacted because the import of software at way cheaper prices than they were available here in EU, was against the TOS.
Usually we were not contacted again after my first response to them, that they could shove their American legalese shit where the sun doesn't shine, US law has no bearing in Europe, and the TOS containing just 1 illegal clause invalidates the whole thing here. 🤣 🤣 🤣

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Thats crazy, i was expecting that just the illegal clauses would be invalid

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Not here, as I understand it, it's pretty general that if a contract has an illegal clause, it invalidates the entire contract. As in it removes other special clauses even if they are legal.

[-] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago

I've read many contracts which explicitly state that any part being invalidated does not invalidate the remaining parts.

[-] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

Invalidating this clause would then invalid the whole thing de facto

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yep, doesn't work in my country at least (Denmark). And since that clause is illegal IDK if that alone can invalidate it?

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago

I love it when they force you to scroll. It’s such theater.

[-] Avicenna@programming.dev 9 points 2 days ago

I wonder if any such company tried to use this as evidence in court: "the defendant has scrolled through the terms so the statement that he hasn't read them is not factual"

[-] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I'm pretty sure YouTube's TOS demands acceptance of every other Google product TOS.

If we tack those on, I wonder if it could get to the moon and back in 12 point font?

Edit: I cannot wrap my head around how long the combination must be.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago

Also, tosdr.

[-] saltnotsugar@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago

I’ve tried to read the full terms of service before and on top of being very long, they’re overly vague when it comes to what they collect.

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 21 points 2 days ago

Yeah ... not only are they long, they're written by lawyers who are trying to obfuscate things while still covering the company's ass legally.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

It's all fuckin moot because most of them say something like "these terms can be changed at any time and by agreeing to these terms, you implicitly agree to those terms".

Probably wouldn't stand up in court, but most people don't have the money to fight a court case they would obviously win, so that doesn't matter either.

[-] Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 6 points 2 days ago

Wonder what Linux's look like

[-] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 11 points 2 days ago

The GPLv2 comes to about 2500 words, which puts it at about 10 minutes read time according to this infographic.

[-] usrtrv@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

That only applies if you modify/distribute it. That doesn't apply to a user. I guess comparing the length of a company's employee handbook would be a fair comparison to the GPLv2.

[-] nop@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Don't worry, violating the TOS isn't a federal crime punishable by jail time .. right? Oops.

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

They always say not reading it is not a defense. But I wonder if you took all the termsmof service for all the products and services you use, and add in updates, then figure the total time to read AND understand (because reading is not enough when they are written in legalease)... if you presented that number to a judge, would they change their mind? It's probably a huge number, likely just reading and understanding updates alone would be a daunting task.

[-] Zahille7@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

With my attention span, it would take me at least three three times as long to read the Microsoft TOS.

Who did they have time this shit? A speed reader?

[-] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

They base the reading time by assuming someone reads 240 words per minute (stated near the top of the infograph, on the right.)

My guess is they didn't actually time somebody reading the terms and conditions, but rather they took the total word count and divided it by 240.

I wondered where they got the number from, too. I found a page discussing a meta analysis of English reading speeds that concluded that for silent reading, people commonly read 238 words per minute. The infographic probably took that average and rounded it up to 240.

Though considering the jargon and opacity of most "terms and conditions," I imagine the reality to be that most people take longer to read through it than if they were reading something for pleasure.

[-] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Idk too many people who can read the art of war in under an hour, either :p

[-] its_kim_love 15 points 2 days ago

That was my favorite part of switching to Lemmy. My Instance's terms of service were a few paragraphs.

[-] sefra1@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 days ago

Would be interesting having the GPL v3 in there for comparison.

[-] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago

GPLv3 comes out to 5215 words, so pretty long.

[-] stenAanden@feddit.dk 5 points 2 days ago

Good guy instagram is still horrible

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

a bit ironic that tiktok, known for the 15 second vertical videos, have one of the longest tos

[-] Damaskox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Fun!

[-] birdwing 3 points 2 days ago

This is a terrible graphic, the "short" documents should be proportional to length, while they're not.

[-] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

This could be posted in Cool Guides.

this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
511 points (100.0% liked)

Mildly Interesting

26079 readers
362 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
marcar@lemmy.world
WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world
Jimbabwe@lemmy.ml
Zerlyna@lemmy.world