In agreements, instead of someone checking a box saying they read and understood the terms, should they be tested on their understanding?

[Anonymous]

Some "food for thought":

• Have any of your teachers gauged your understanding of something by asking you to check a box saying that you have read and understood something?
• According to the National Literacy Institute, "21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2024" (https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025literacy-statistics , accessed 1/27/25)
• Dunning-Kruger effect is a , "the theory that a person who lacks skill or expertise also lacks the insight to accurately evaluate this deficit, resulting in a persistent inflation of estimated competence in self-assessments" (Dictionary. com, accessed 1/27/25)
• Responsible means, "answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management..." (Dictionary. com, 1/27/25)

Yes, people should be tested for their understanding because _____.

No, people should not be tested for their understanding because _____.

Other / I want to see results.

[strateguy632]

No because most of the products we are forced to use.

such as whatsaapp therefore the consent is tainted anyway.

like buying a phone and agreeing to the terms because you have no choice And need a phone.

only really agreeing to the price and type of phone you selected from options.

They can only fairly hold you accountable by giving an easy to read page with the truly relevant stuff revealed easily with an opportunity to not sign and "back out".

then only for details on that page. Not any convoluted unfair stuff.

Reference south park episode human centipede.

[strateguy632]

Your question inspired a mytake, the first one here in 8 months! Coming soon!

[Anonymous]

No, I just check the box without reading all of that crap.