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

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.