Nor am I one. However there are surely differences between chilling free speech (removing speech), litigating against slanderous speech, the illusion of (but n

Nor am I one. However there are surely differences between chilling free speech (removing speech), litigating against slanderous speech, the illusion of (but not actually) a public forum for reviews of all sorts (particularly if there are ratings but legitimate low rated reviews are removed), and retaliating against those who've publicly reviewed. It is far more credible to believe that a loose association of similar tactics across a small number of large business entities might reasonably create a chilling effect upon speech. An example; as a renter I have heard rumors of others who've left low reviews in public places and find it difficult to find willing renters in the future. I have no basis for this but the process of qualifying a renter is also opaque so I have no evidence to refute it either. It isn't unreasonable to think market forces could coincidentally cause various entities to reach a similar logical conclusion, or that an outsourced background check agency checks for various public posts that might be relevant to the rental agencies.