On the contrary. My statements bear equivalent accuracy to yours in our current reality. My statements are also very obviously FUD. So is yours.

Or do you dispute that you could be hospitalized for salmonella if you botch cooking poultry at home? Or perhaps you feel that there is no straightforward way to inadvertently endanger your life by servicing your vehicle incorrectly?

▲

jrflowers a day ago | parent [-]

Interesting. While there is no such thing as a chauffeurs union or an FSD alliance, if we say that they exist maybe they do. Similarly, if you say something is “FUD” then maybe it becomes that.

I genuinely do not understand the last two sentences. Are you pro- or anti- “telling people that salmonella exists” ? Is saying “salmonella exists and can be a problem” FUD or what? Do you think salmonella isn’t real

▲

fc417fc802 a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, the final two were tongue in cheek but follow the same pattern and thus serve to illustrate the point being made. You don't seem to be engaging in good faith.

> Is saying “salmonella exists and can be a problem” FUD or what?

Obviously that depends on context. If a bunch of restaurants form a PAC and start lobbying with that message to restrict the sale of animal products at the grocery store then it is. If the FDA mentions it on a page about basic food handling safety then it probably isn't (depending on the surrounding text ofc).

Rooting your device is a security risk the same way that servicing your own car is a safety risk. When I hear "security risk" or "safety risk" I'm expecting something that's inherently dangerous like wingsuit jumping or cave diving. I'm not expecting something that should only ever fail if I don't exercise due diligence. This difference in perceived meaning is being exploited by those spreading the message similar to when Coca-Cola got sued for a label that implied pomegranate juice when the bottle contained only 0.3 percent.

When device vendors lock end users out of their own devices and then aggressively spread such a message to justify doing so it qualifies as FUD or propaganda. A vested interest has disenfranchised people as part of a long term strategy to enrich themselves and is attempting to manipulate the public narrative regarding their actions.

	▲	jrflowers 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You don't seem to be engaging in good faith. You posted actual nonsense and then declined to say if you are for or against telling people that salmonella is real. Anyway, in good faith > Obviously that depends on context. This makes sense. Context matters, and it is important to imagine some when it is missing. For example, in this exchange you saw a stranger on the internet post “rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk” and, in a vacuum of any relevant information, pictured a world where they work at Samsung in their Awful Spyware Division and started posting from that premise. Or just saying it at all FUDs up the vibe and ruins the context? The point you are making is either that it is important to invent context if you feel FUD, or that the wrong context for certain correct information is “the context wherein it is shared”. Can you clarify which is it? Either we agree that rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk and you just sort of imagine me working for a terrible company, or We both agree that rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk but you and I are the only people that should know that. Any context where this fact that we agree about could be shared is made inappropriate by its inclusion. Like are we dealing with hallucinations or are we dealing with Untouchable Facts