I'm enthusiastic about the software that Uber and Lyft are developing to make this whole thing work so beautifully. I catch their algorithms making mistakes sometimes. I catch them doing something sneaky sometimes (Lyft more than Uber.) I have some ideas on how to make it work better. I've done 2000 rides and picked up some really interesting people. I like to go to different cities and try them out. It's fun. If my enthusiasm makes me a shill, then so be it.

Fair enough. Let me restate my concern in less fraught terms:

> "Up to 70% of drivers are like me and ... would like you to vote yes on Prop 22 if you are in California."

This is a claim that has been widely promulgated by the big gig-economy companies in a wide-ranging PR campaign. Do you have any actual independently-verifiable data to support it, or are you just blindly repeating it to advance a political agenda that you just happen to support?

Cursory glance at the comment history seems to argue otherwise, no?

Lyft is sneaky. They sent me to a cemetary next to a busy area once when I was on the hwy going home and then cancelled the ride once I got to the cemetery. Then they messaged me and said as long as I was in a busy area, why didn't I wait? The thing that pissed me off was the algorithm actually directed me to drive into a cemetary on a dark night, as if someone was there waiting for me. Of course I didn't go in the cemetery. Another time Lyft indicated there was a busy bonus area a couple miles from the airport. I went there and waited and then noticed other drivers waiting. It wasn't a busy area. What Lyft was doing was parking us there because the airport waiting lot was full. Lyft also has several times cancelled trips right when I got there so I don't get paid. Uber doesn't play tricks like this. However, people who take Lyft are usually nicer people. Does it seem like a shill would say stuff like this? If you think so, then I can't help you.

Thousands of rides is not "without even a shred of data". You, on the other hand, have no data, yet seem to be very outspoken on the topic. If anyone is a bot in this conversation, it is you.

Oh I have like 9000 rides, so since I claim that it must be true and now my opinions turn to facts according to you. Cool.

And we both know you're lying.

I am aware but if you actually look at the comments the author is posting about being an uber driver for 5 months or more interspersed with what seem like substantive comments.

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

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.

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.

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.