Perhaps they meant 200 minutes.

Or perhaps they also never read the law they are chiding others for not reading.

Try reading it, it's like 10 sentences per page and plain language.

What is the point of lying about this? Anyone can open up the PDF and see this is an untrue statement.

The text is 56k words, novella length but dry and tedious. This is hours of reading.

I’m not saying it’s unreasonable to read this document if your work involves GDPR compliance. But this is not a quick or easy read.

Maybe I have an advantage because I am natively english and learned to read at a young age, idk.

I’m not lying, why would I provide the source if I was?

It is an outright lie that there are “10 sentences per page”. You can open the PDF and see that this is not even a little bit correct. 10 sentences per page would maybe be appropriate for an Early Reader book. It’s certainly not we have here.

You also didn’t read 56k words in 20 minutes. This is nonsense, at 46 words per second.

Maybe “statements” is better than “sentences”, but I meant what I meant..

and yes it took 20 minutes, it’s not the dense legalese you’re implying.

it’s just not. unless the dense one here is not the text.

https://imgur.com/D19T8zD

I could suspend my disbelief for a moment and imagine that you are capable of reading 46 words per second. Sure. You happen to read about 10x faster than the average person at 250-300 words per minute. Congrats.

What I cannot believe is that you would in any way imagine that this is normal. Speed readers know that they read faster than other people and do not casually assume others could read The Hobbit in 34 minutes.

So no, I don’t actually believe you read this in 20 minutes, at >4 pages per minute, >46 words per second, and 10x faster than an average reader. Generously I would say you perhaps skimmed the doc in that time.

On the off chance that this is true, again congrats. You should know for the future that your experience reading does not map to the typical person who literally reads about 10x slower than you.

clearly, you haven’t tried reading it.

Jesus Christ, it’s like talking to a brick wall.

The amount of effort I’ve spent replying to you is more than was necessary to understand the entire fucking text.

Every statement is very clear what they’re saying, don’t record what you don’t need, how do you define what you need, make sure personal information can be deleted, what constitutes personal information.

It’s really really really fucking easy, like dude; you’re halfway through a sentence you know exactly what they’re getting at. You finish it anyway in case there’s an exception or something, and it’s never the case that there is.

Whatever… you believe whatever the fuck you wanna believe don’t call me a fucking liar though you cunt.

At no point did I say the law was very difficult to read. I said that your claim that it should take 20 minutes to read is absurd.

That the other replies to you said basically the same should clue you in that this is not realistic for others even if it were realistic for you.

> don’t call me a fucking liar though you cunt.

You could have easily just walked your claim back and said “Okay, 20 minutes is an exaggeration but it’s not a hard law to read”. Instead you repeatedly doubled down and backed yourself into a corner where the only possible options are that you are an ultra speed reader at 10x normal pace or you are a liar.

Not my problem if you don’t like those options.

GDPR is not dense legalese. Start on page 33, read the first 3 chapters and then until bored, start again from page 1 until you reach 33 again, and then read from where you left off: it'll make perfect sense.