No. A common method to defeat it is adding useless parameters to the URL (like "?1"). I think this case was a genuine mistake, though. This submission has no "www." but the one from five days ago does. (Edit: ludwigvan beat me to the punch by a few seconds.)
Unfortunately, companies pay lawyers to come up with incomprehensible AUP/TOS/etc, and those lawyers are unlikely to want to allow the company to use a "generic" document, even if it is very high quality.
There are some ridiculous terms and conditions in some documents, and I'm not sure if any of them have ever been tested in courts.
I'm keen to see how this team can overcome international differences in law to create a simple but effective ToS.
As far as I can tell, the plan isn't to create a standardised document but rather to provide greater transparency over existing TOS.
In terms of court testing, one example is the OFT in the UK requesting that Apple make changes to its terms which were considered to be in breach of UK legislation.
I don't think the objective is to create incomprehensible terms. In fact I am confident that if most people had the time/inclination to read the TOS, they would understand them. The problem is that their length obviously puts people off, which is where the project comes in.
Great initiative, but at a glance the results seem biased towards Google (no mention of issues around the new unified accounts, complaints about youtube realnames etc.).
