(This also kickstarted a discussion that maybe that warrants a change to the algorithm, so maybe later more.)
While it may be true that most ToS are onerous, suppose we look at a ToS document as a collection of terms of service. It's only the terms of service that cause a removal of rights that would otherwise be assumed. The more terms there are, and the more onerous each one is, the more rights can be removed. But before there are any terms, no rights are removed, so that situation should be an A. Diminished from there, depending on how many terms there are, and each one's onerousness.
"The service may use tracking pixels, web beacons, browser fingerprinting, and/or device fingerprinting on users."
Seriously? What for? People invest their time to provide free content and as a reward they are getting behavior typical for privacy invasive corpo from California?
I don't understand how a website telling me that Facebook has a "Grade E" ToS is supposed to help me at all. Just give me a summary, the bullet points -- you don't need to try to assign each into "good/bad", and you certainly don't need to run an "algorithm" to show me if it's good or bad.
Chances are, if it says "sells all your data", I can figure out if I care about that, as a user, with freedom.
Maybe give me what you think (or your algorithm thinks) are the most important/controversial/impactful points, but don't rate them. This is akin to Wikipedia saying "Friday is the worst song ever created, wow it's so bad (thumbs down emoji)".