Terms: 12 pages; Privacy: 6 pages. Terms are way too long.

General info: Privacy Policy dated 3/23/2017. Cookies Web beacons. Log data. Clear gifs. Clickstream date. Google analytics, interest-based ads.

BAD ASPECTS: The opt-out is different for the USA and Canada. It's unclear the policy for rest of world. Information may be shared with subsidiaries and affiliates. It's unclear: is it a part of newscorp? http://newscorp.com/about/our-businesses Shares your information with 3rd party clients and business partners. The law enforcement policy is deficient, agreeing to comply with mere "legal process" and agreeing to give your information "to law enforcement authorities or other government officials". Apparently, on page 5, they will also report you to law enforcement on mere suspicion of violating the terms of service? That can't be right. There is better privacy for California residents. Doesn't clearly address account recovery and the cell phone porting problem.

GOOD ASPECTS: Good table of contents. Not too long (but should be shorter).

BAD ASPECTS: On p.2, there is a right to terminate you for very unclear reasons. On p.4, way too many subjective undefined words: harmful, threatening, deceptive, harassing, profane, obscene, vulgar, patently offensive (to whom?), promotes racism, bigotry, hatred, etc. These are all terms that can be interpreted in many different ways.

GOOD ASPECTS: Can't impersonate other people

BAD ASPECTS: Same old far too broad non-exclusive license that also has a 'modify' clause and a 'sublicensable' clause. Oh, and "for any purpose whatsoever... without accounting, notification, credit" That's just lovely. And funny, then in the next paragraph, they say that they do not acquire any title or ownership rights. But what does that matter when you've given them a license to do ANYTHING with your posts, including sell them, modify them, and sublicense them to other people. In other words, you've totally given up your rights of posts that you 'own'. It's unclear how they verify if you have indeed violated someone's copyright.

GOOD ASPECTS: They don't take ownership. Ha!

Laws of New York.

BAD ASPECTS: Most claims are barred in a court of law. They reduce your statute of limitations of ALL cases to just 1 year, and this is hidden. It seems any recovery is limited to $100.

GOOD ASPECTS: All claims in court are barred except IP and trade secret issues, which you can file suit for in NY federal court. You may also be able to file suit in court for injunctive relief. Certain small claims cases are permitted.

BAD ASPECTS: You are basically forced to arbitrate on many claims. Recovery apparently limited to $100. 1 year statute of limitations on all claims. You also agree to never disclose any arbitration with anyone. For this, NY Post sadly will lose ten points on the 'lawsuits' score, because there's no way to know how much arbitration has occurred.

GOOD ASPECTS: They make it clear that they hope to solve the problem via customer service if possible. Thereafter, there is a 30-day discussion period (except for IP/trade secret claims, for which you can immediately go to court on). Finally, arbitration via JAMS. If the claim is less than $10,000, then arbitration may be via documents or phone. Arbitration venue is NY, but they will help you find a more convenient place if coming to NY is too difficult. If you're in the USA, they will reimburse up to $2,500 of your arbitration fees, or $5,000 if they lose, and you pay them $0 if they win. This is very nice!

Waived on page 11.

BAD ASPECTS: There are so many hidden terms, and nothing is clear up front. The table of contents idea from the privacy policy should also be in the TOS. Promotions and contests are subject to a wholly different terms of service.

GOOD ASPECTS: No hidden fees.

BAD ASPECTS: No due process. No warning process. No opportunity to correct. No defense period. No fair and impartial decision-making process.

GOOD ASPECTS: None.

BAD ASPECTS: No appeal process. No second-chance/ right to return policy.

GOOD ASPECTS: None.

BAD ASPECTS: Section 17 talks about indemnity, but it's not clear if it's third party indemnity. Like virtually every news organization, there is (unfathomably) no warranty at all that the articles are accurate, or that they even make an attempt to ensure the articles are accurate. Any unenforceable terms will be amended to align with intent, but in a contract of adhesion, the only intent that matters is the company, so this is a terribly unfair clause. You are liable for anything that happens on your account, even if hacked. On p.3, section 7.2, it says "additional terms", but what additional terms are you referring to? Not good at all.

GOOD ASPECTS: They try to make the forced arbitration a little less hard to swallow.