5 ms·

People sure love to throw out the shill card without providing any proof.

chris_wot 11y ago
Perhaps, but the comments are a bit silly given what the parent poster says: 60% of Android users are affected by this. Why do Uber need that permission in the first place? What exactly are they doing with the permissions that are granted?
- mirimir 11y ago
  They want to black-box your mind, of course ;)
Johnny555 11y ago
It would make a pretty poor shill if it were easy to prove it.
vehementi 10y ago
The fact is there are shills everywhere. It's hard to prove them in all cases. But it is a "big" and important industry for companies to anonymously and without accountability do damage control. There have been articles and AMA's etc. from people who had worked for these firms and it's really disgusting. So it's not people with tin foil hats speculating that shills might exist - we know shills exist and are pervasive. Given that, we should have a certain non zero belief that any given poster is a shill. Not sure what is the best way to proceed when you know for sure that there are spies around you all the time. That's a bigger discussion. But jumping on people as if we should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there's a shill is really counter productive and helping "them" win.
- SquareWheel 10y ago
  The existence of past conspiracies does not offer proof of new ones. Likewise, the fact that shills have existed in the past does not mean they exist here and now. The burden of proof is still on the one making the claim. It's not only irresponsible but dangerous to take a guilty until proven innocent approach. You should expect somebody to prove it if they're making a claim. That's not letting anyone "win". Look at profiles. Look for unusual voting patterns. Is it more likely that Uber is secretly watching and manipulating a forum for hackers, or could it be that a lot of people here actually quite like Uber as a company? Occam's razor suggests the latter. Or maybe - like me - this story just seems shaky as hell with people not understanding that Android permissions (like license agreements) often over-extend themselves. That a permission requiring X doesn't mean X is being used. All the time we see things like "App requires contacts list" where it's only grabbing the owner's info. Honestly, playing the shill card is lazy and irrelevant. If you have proof, show it -- otherwise you're just spreading FUD.

Perhaps, but the comments are a bit silly given what the parent poster says: 60% of Android users are affected by this. Why do Uber need that permission in the first place? What exactly are they doing with the permissions that are granted?

mirimir 11y ago
They want to black-box your mind, of course ;)

Johnny555 11y ago

It would make a pretty poor shill if it were easy to prove it.

vehementi 10y ago

The fact is there are shills everywhere. It's hard to prove them in all cases. But it is a "big" and important industry for companies to anonymously and without accountability do damage control. There have been articles and AMA's etc. from people who had worked for these firms and it's really disgusting. So it's not people with tin foil hats speculating that shills might exist - we know shills exist and are pervasive. Given that, we should have a certain non zero belief that any given poster is a shill. Not sure what is the best way to proceed when you know for sure that there are spies around you all the time. That's a bigger discussion. But jumping on people as if we should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there's a shill is really counter productive and helping "them" win.

SquareWheel 10y ago
The existence of past conspiracies does not offer proof of new ones. Likewise, the fact that shills have existed in the past does not mean they exist here and now. The burden of proof is still on the one making the claim. It's not only irresponsible but dangerous to take a guilty until proven innocent approach. You should expect somebody to prove it if they're making a claim. That's not letting anyone "win". Look at profiles. Look for unusual voting patterns. Is it more likely that Uber is secretly watching and manipulating a forum for hackers, or could it be that a lot of people here actually quite like Uber as a company? Occam's razor suggests the latter. Or maybe - like me - this story just seems shaky as hell with people not understanding that Android permissions (like license agreements) often over-extend themselves. That a permission requiring X doesn't mean X is being used. All the time we see things like "App requires contacts list" where it's only grabbing the owner's info. Honestly, playing the shill card is lazy and irrelevant. If you have proof, show it -- otherwise you're just spreading FUD.