In a recent article by Kevin Litman-Navarro for the New York Times, entitled We Read 150 Privacy Policies. They were an incomprehensible disaster the complexity of 150 terms of popular pages like Facebook, Airbnb, etc. were analyzed and understood. For example, most licenses require university degrees or higher degrees: “To succeed at university, people must understand texts with a score of 1300. People in trades, such as doctors and lawyers, should be able to understand materials with grades of 1440, while 3rd graders should understand texts that score more than 1050 points to be on track for a university or career until graduation. Many privacy policies exceed these standards.  Jerry Pournelle wrote in 1983: “I have seen no evidence that… Levian agreements – full of “You must not” have any impact on piracy. He gave an example of a CLA that was impossible for a user to stick to, and he said, “Come on, guys. No one expects these agreements to be respected. Pournelle noted that, in practice, many companies were more generous to their customers than their U.S. required: “So why do they insist that their customers sign “agreements” that the customer refuses to keep and that the company knows they are not respected? … Should we continue to make hypocrites for both publishers and customers?  Several companies have parodied this belief that users do not read end-user licensing agreements by adding unusual clauses, knowing that few users will ever read them. As an April joke, Gamestation added a clause stating that users who placed an order on April 1, 2010 agreed to give their souls irrevocably to the company, which was accepted by 7,500 users.