This argument would carry more weight if the terms of service and privacy policies were both complete and written in a way that ordinary non-lawyer people could actually understand.
Eh, if I sign up for a credit card for "0% APR!!!" and then don't read the fine print that it's an introductory offer, isn't that a result of my action (or lack thereof)?
That they use fine print or dense legalese doesn't invalidate the fact that it was there for the end-user to read and agree or disagree with. I find that most "ordinary non-lawyer" people can understand these policies if they take the time to actually read them. They're verbose, not arcane.
> I find that most "ordinary non-lawyer" people can understand these policies if they take the time to actually read them.
I find exactly the opposite.
> They're verbose, not arcane.
They're both.
The problem is that people aren't lawyers and don't read them with a lawyer's eye. This frequently leads people to think that the terms are saying things that they aren't saying (by design). People tend to think that these policies are more favorable to the user than they actually are.
That they use fine print or dense legalese doesn't invalidate the fact that it was there for the end-user to read and agree or disagree with. I find that most "ordinary non-lawyer" people can understand these policies if they take the time to actually read them. They're verbose, not arcane.