5 ms·

How do we know you’re not a shill? What does this question do other than lower the level of discourse in the community?

lisper 6y ago
The OP repeated a claim being made by the large gig companies without providing any references or actual data. If anything is lowering the level of discourse here it is parroting a politically-loaded factual claim ("Up to 70% of drivers are like me and ... would like you to vote yes on Prop 22 if you are in California.") without citing any independently verifiable data to support it. Asking how we can know the OP is not a shill just seemed like a less long-winded way to make that point. It was late.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  My feeling on this sort of thing is that you can find a real person who supports virtually any political position. In opinion polling, 40% of the state’s voters support prop 22. That’s millions of people, and it shouldn’t be hard to believe that some of them are are techie Lyft drivers commenting here. Accusing them of being shills is bad argumentation and violates the rules of the community. They did already explain that they are driving for these companies, which is a good explanation for why they would know stats that the companies are peddling. Mindfully exercising theory of mind to figure out why someone might honestly have a different opinion is always a useful practice. In the context of a debate, it will help you argue more convincingly. If you’re just trying to understand what’s happening in public opinion, it helps develop a more accurate world model.
  - lisper 6y ago
    As I was trying to clarify in my first reply to you, I was not taking the OP to task for expressing an opinion. I was taking him to task for making a factual claim without evidence, a factual claim that also happens to part of a PR campaign funded by one of the parties in the dispute. That makes the claim a priori suspect, and repeating it without a reference subject to valid criticism. I will own the fact that I phrased my criticism inartfully at first (it was late), but I stand behind its substance as clarified here.

The OP repeated a claim being made by the large gig companies without providing any references or actual data. If anything is lowering the level of discourse here it is parroting a politically-loaded factual claim ("Up to 70% of drivers are like me and ... would like you to vote yes on Prop 22 if you are in California.") without citing any independently verifiable data to support it. Asking how we can know the OP is not a shill just seemed like a less long-winded way to make that point. It was late.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
My feeling on this sort of thing is that you can find a real person who supports virtually any political position. In opinion polling, 40% of the state’s voters support prop 22. That’s millions of people, and it shouldn’t be hard to believe that some of them are are techie Lyft drivers commenting here. Accusing them of being shills is bad argumentation and violates the rules of the community. They did already explain that they are driving for these companies, which is a good explanation for why they would know stats that the companies are peddling. Mindfully exercising theory of mind to figure out why someone might honestly have a different opinion is always a useful practice. In the context of a debate, it will help you argue more convincingly. If you’re just trying to understand what’s happening in public opinion, it helps develop a more accurate world model.
- lisper 6y ago
  As I was trying to clarify in my first reply to you, I was not taking the OP to task for expressing an opinion. I was taking him to task for making a factual claim without evidence, a factual claim that also happens to part of a PR campaign funded by one of the parties in the dispute. That makes the claim a priori suspect, and repeating it without a reference subject to valid criticism. I will own the fact that I phrased my criticism inartfully at first (it was late), but I stand behind its substance as clarified here.