AimIsADickAlso, everyones biased to an extent, my dude (me included). humans are not soulless beings; we have emotions from our primitive days. However I've backed up most of my claims with sources starting from early in the thread.
Also, the entire grammar and letters of Esperanto can be read in just 1 (yes, 1) page: https://www.akademio-de-esperanto.org/fundamento/gramatiko_angla.html . so I'm founded on actual evidence in this regard (and not just using clickbait scumbag tactics like, hyping up chinese to be easy focusing on the grammar, only for the beginner to get crushed down by ideograms.
.
I think I wasn't clear, I meant moreso that you can't really use (functional) illiteracy rates of Esperanto as evidence of the ease of the language because of confounding factors. Also, practically speaking, if you define functional illiteracy as when an individual lacks the literacy level to interact with their immediate environment Esperanto is practically automatically exempt given its nature (given that Esperanto is usually learned because it serves as a bridge for ppl across the world, how many places in the world do you truly rely on it as your sole means of communication/interaction). The confounding is in the form of socioeconomic status, as was mentioned that drives functional illiteracy and I'd be very surprised if most people who have the desire or time to learn a conlang are at least well off "enough". Previous point more or less applies to all conlangs, although I doubt anybody is teaching Klingon to poor kids.
I agree that Esperanto on its own merits is very "easy" or "simple".