3 ms·

Multiple people report that comments such as "Service was slow", or three star rating without comment were removed. If Google started to show how many reviews

Multiple people report that comments such as "Service was slow", or three star rating without comment were removed. If Google started to show how many reviews were removed, it was because the lawfare started to seriously affect the ratings.

CarlitosHighway 4mo ago
Anecdotal
- Saline9515 4mo ago
  Of course, Google spends engineering/legal hours to make country-specific changes relative to problems that do not exist.
  - joe_mamba 4mo ago
    Save your breath. CarlitosHighway's posts on this thread shows he's just blindly running defense for Germany's status quo on defamation laws low threshold for abuse on every argument someone brings, not being open to arguing in good faith, weightings in on the pros and cons of this, so it doesn't matter what counterexamples you keep bringing to him, it won't change his mind, his replies will be more "anecdotal" snarks. When you see the pattern, best to stopped arguing with such users as their goal is not an honest debate, their goal is just to 'DDoS' you with their opinion.
    - HPsquared 4mo ago
      Maybe there is a German law against spamming.
      - dgellow 4mo ago
        Depending on the spam, there is yes § 7 UWG Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb
    - CarlitosHighway 4mo ago
      There's no point in weighing the pros and cons of laws, if people want to change them, they need to pursue the official lane to do so. Arguing on this American "Brainiac MAGA" forum will not help them in their goals to make Germany more like the US.
luke5441 4mo ago
Yes, Google just removes them as a first step because this is the least amount of work for them. Theoretically there is an Google appeals process. After that it needs to go to court. My guess is that often reviews are generalizing (easy mistake to make). E.g. they say "service is slow", when they should say: "When I was there on Thursday at noon service was slow for my table".
- abustamam 4mo ago
  When reading a review, it should always be assumed that it is based off of one "visit". A negative review will probably never have more than a few visits and if they do they'd normally say "I used to come here a lot but after new ownership service sucks!"
  - alterom 4mo ago
    > it should always be assumed Who dictates the "should”? The German law simply removes the need to assume anything.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
  - RobotToaster 4mo ago
    We're talking about a country where someone had their house raided and their devices stolen by the police for tweeting "Du bist so 1 Pimmel" (you are such a dick) to a politician.
    - luke5441 4mo ago
      This was later deemed inappropriate by courts. Shit happens -- as long as the corrective mechanisms work it is just exceptions.
      - abustamam 4mo ago
        I'm not super convinced that we can call something like that as "shit happens." in the US "shit" like this happens where cops wrongly raid someone's house and someone often dies because of of this. Though, I think it may be an example of corrective mechanisms not working, but this shouldn't have even happened once.
DonHopkins 4mo ago
"Lawfare" is a propogandistic term coined and used hypocritically by people who get away with doing illegal things themselves, and have a long track record of getting revenge for being legally indicted and prosecuted, by gleefully going after innocent people on their enemies list with the very legal system they control themselves. And you know exactly who I mean, who uses that term all the time.
- Saline9515 4mo ago
  The term is older than Trump. Suing everyone who criticizes you is a classic example of lawfare. The goal is not justice but the chilling effect created by your legal actions.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - nobody9999 4mo ago
    >The term is older than Trump. Suing everyone who criticizes you is a classic example of lawfare. The goal is not justice but the chilling effect created by your legal actions. According to[0] the (aptly named) Lawfare Institute: Since the term “lawfare” is controversial in some circles, and subject to a variety of interpretations and uses, a bit more explanation about our understanding of the concept is in order. Going back to the 1950s, the term has frequently been used in contexts wholly unrelated to national security, ranging from divorce law to courtroom advocacy to colonialism to airfare for lawyers. While the term is often used to do as you assert, it can also have a different remit. cf. some of the topics addressed[1] by the aforementioned Lawfare Institute. [0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/about/our-story https://www.lawfaremedia.org/about/our-story [1] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/ https://www.lawfaremedia.org/
- snickerbockers 4mo ago
  [dead]

CarlitosHighway 4mo ago

Anecdotal

Saline9515 4mo ago
Of course, Google spends engineering/legal hours to make country-specific changes relative to problems that do not exist.
- joe_mamba 4mo ago
  Save your breath. CarlitosHighway's posts on this thread shows he's just blindly running defense for Germany's status quo on defamation laws low threshold for abuse on every argument someone brings, not being open to arguing in good faith, weightings in on the pros and cons of this, so it doesn't matter what counterexamples you keep bringing to him, it won't change his mind, his replies will be more "anecdotal" snarks. When you see the pattern, best to stopped arguing with such users as their goal is not an honest debate, their goal is just to 'DDoS' you with their opinion.
  - HPsquared 4mo ago
    Maybe there is a German law against spamming.
    - dgellow 4mo ago
      Depending on the spam, there is yes § 7 UWG Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb
  - CarlitosHighway 4mo ago
    There's no point in weighing the pros and cons of laws, if people want to change them, they need to pursue the official lane to do so. Arguing on this American "Brainiac MAGA" forum will not help them in their goals to make Germany more like the US.

luke5441 4mo ago

Yes, Google just removes them as a first step because this is the least amount of work for them. Theoretically there is an Google appeals process. After that it needs to go to court. My guess is that often reviews are generalizing (easy mistake to make). E.g. they say "service is slow", when they should say: "When I was there on Thursday at noon service was slow for my table".

abustamam 4mo ago
When reading a review, it should always be assumed that it is based off of one "visit". A negative review will probably never have more than a few visits and if they do they'd normally say "I used to come here a lot but after new ownership service sucks!"
- alterom 4mo ago
  > it should always be assumed Who dictates the "should”? The German law simply removes the need to assume anything.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- RobotToaster 4mo ago
  We're talking about a country where someone had their house raided and their devices stolen by the police for tweeting "Du bist so 1 Pimmel" (you are such a dick) to a politician.
  - luke5441 4mo ago
    This was later deemed inappropriate by courts. Shit happens -- as long as the corrective mechanisms work it is just exceptions.
    - abustamam 4mo ago
      I'm not super convinced that we can call something like that as "shit happens." in the US "shit" like this happens where cops wrongly raid someone's house and someone often dies because of of this. Though, I think it may be an example of corrective mechanisms not working, but this shouldn't have even happened once.

DonHopkins 4mo ago

"Lawfare" is a propogandistic term coined and used hypocritically by people who get away with doing illegal things themselves, and have a long track record of getting revenge for being legally indicted and prosecuted, by gleefully going after innocent people on their enemies list with the very legal system they control themselves. And you know exactly who I mean, who uses that term all the time.

Saline9515 4mo ago
The term is older than Trump. Suing everyone who criticizes you is a classic example of lawfare. The goal is not justice but the chilling effect created by your legal actions.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- nobody9999 4mo ago
  >The term is older than Trump. Suing everyone who criticizes you is a classic example of lawfare. The goal is not justice but the chilling effect created by your legal actions. According to[0] the (aptly named) Lawfare Institute: Since the term “lawfare” is controversial in some circles, and subject to a variety of interpretations and uses, a bit more explanation about our understanding of the concept is in order. Going back to the 1950s, the term has frequently been used in contexts wholly unrelated to national security, ranging from divorce law to courtroom advocacy to colonialism to airfare for lawyers. While the term is often used to do as you assert, it can also have a different remit. cf. some of the topics addressed[1] by the aforementioned Lawfare Institute. [0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/about/our-story https://www.lawfaremedia.org/about/our-story [1] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/ https://www.lawfaremedia.org/
snickerbockers 4mo ago
[dead]