Grammerly iz huge honeypot?

Don't make me laugh.

They don't
But the ads make them think that they need it
Normies are dumb
They can be manipulated by a dumb ad pitch

By selling user data.

I would call that "little".

*wouldn't

That's not a lot of information. By their description, they have specific uses for that information and it doesn't involve sharing it with other companies.

Not a lot of information by today's Obese Data standards, but it's still quite a lot and quite personal. And of course they sell that data, don't be so naive, they would be idiots not to and we would be idiots to use their shit. We are not their audience to begin with.

I'm naive because I don't have strong evidence to prove otherwise. I cannot accept cynicism as evidence. I cannot accept hearsay or speculation as evidence.

Your evidence is today's general practice, it's that way by default, it's normal. You're keeping your head in the sand.

Yeah, but i don't care.

The difference between you and me is that you're willing to entrust your worldview based on guesses. I'm not willing to do that. I base my worldview based on hard verifiable facts. I can speculate about things that might be so, but I never hold such speculation as fact. I don't construct my worldview with regard to speculation.

1) Grammarly's privacy policy says they don't sell their user data
2) I have no proof that Grammarly is selling user data

Therefore, I conclude that Grammarly is probably not selling user data. It's that simple.

So you don't know whether I'm a human or a dog.

Exactly. You could very well be the FBI's Internet dog or some sort of sentient AI unleashed on the Internet and I would have no clue if you are.

kek
similar piece of shit here
mastodon.social/terms

Please trust us goy

So instead of making reasonable assumptions based on existing patterns and probabilities you choose instead to amputate yourself only to "verifiable facts" and thus deliberately keep yourself literally dumb about the world around you? I'd still call that keeping your head in the sand, you've just found an autistic excuse for it. Apparently you can't claim the Earth is round either.
But your logical reasoning is totally inconsistent with your own autistic standards. Your little bullshit "syllogism" not only assumes from the start that Grammarly's privacy policy is trustworthy or even intelligible (they are always full of misleading legalisms) but concludes with a guess based on what you think is "probable" and not with a "verifiable fact". So you're on the same level as us mortals, you're just trying hard to be Grammarly's bitch instead and with the help of imperfectly executed autism.

You missed the point. The point is that I distinguish hard facts with opinion and that I make sure I know which is which. I know all about the different opinions and speculation but I make sure to keep those ideas as strictly opinions; I know what the opinions are but I don't base my worldview on hearsay and conjecture.

So when people tell me, "Sally was making out with Jimmy by the shed" I'll ask, "when did you see this happen". "I didn't, I heard it from Sarah who saw them there last night". This bit of information is hearsay and I'll keep it as hearsay until I see (or hear) stronger evidence the such events did indeed happen. The fact that Jimmy has a history as a womanizer does not change my worldview that this knowledge is poor quality knowledge.

No, you missed my point. Your conclusion that they don't share user data is as much "poor quality knowledge" as assuming that they do. In fact, from what we've veritably seen everybody else do in the past (not simply hearsay) it's likely that they do share user data. It would be more unlikely that they don't.
As you can see there's nothing to verify here, it's one likelihood against the other. Just think for a while which likelihood you would personally bet your own money on, that will mentally remove you from the role of being their bitch.

For my point of view, this is a rumor as I haven't yet seen the evidence. You're confident it is a common habit for other businesses so it should be easy to find specific eyewitness testimony of a specific person who says something like, "i know for a fact that company X, company Y, and company Z has in fact sold the user data they collected from their websites as stated in the associate terms and conditions". The more specific the details are, the happier I'll be with that knowledge.

I'm willing to bet my money that Grammarly doesn't sell that data because their terms and conditions say so. If it's proven that they do anything contrary, that will give them grounds for a lawsuit for dishonest conduct.

I'm not going to spoon feed you the evidence when there's thousands upon thousands of samples out there and literally 10 thousand of data broker companies themselves by now. I'm going to make a reasonable assumption that you are capable of using a search engine, although I can't verify this, but you're posting here, so it's likely.
As for the ToC that's obviously not for users' understanding but a mix of PR and legalese that really protects the company. There's also loads of companies sharing data illegally, the problem is we usually only know it from researches or leaks, it's obviously not going to be plastered on these companies' websites, you have to do some searching elsewhere. It's like a corruption investigator interviewing politicians and concluding just from that they are clean. Wouldn't make sense because you're investigating something that your target doesn't want to become publicized.