Google said that such negative reviews, unrelated to the actual business, “violates” its policies, and hence have been removed.
Personally, I think the class traitor is the one who deserves this ire.
I was shocked that he showed his face to the media (BBC article from earlier today). Bold.
Users left reviews for at least three McDonald’s locations in or around Altoona, Pennsylvania, with dozens of people leaving one star ratings and complaining about “rats.” Others more explicitly called out “snitches.”
“This location has rats in the kitchen that will make you sick and your insurance isn’t going to cover it,” one reviewer wrote.
Based reviewers
They do this for every business that gets review bombed. I don’t know what’s the big surprise there.
In fact, if you use Google maps, you yourself agreed to Not do this kind of behavior in the TOS.
This has been causal in the past for directly suspending Gmail accounts
Time to review bomb google
Fuck McDonalds, fuck Google. Got it.
Hey, I was already there!
Yeah, they let Trump behind the counter. Fuck McDonalds.
I for one believe that the question of whether a food service establishment has rats is very relevant to the business.
The character of the staff and clientele as well as the financial state of the staff as a direct result of how stingy their employer is can also be very relevant. Do you want to eat somewhere if the people preparing your food there will sell their morals and decency? Kinda seems likely that I could pay somebody there $100 to put their pubes into your quarter pounder.
Maybe the person only heard of the murder, saw some pictures, and didn’t know about all the “justice warriors” foaming at the mouth. I know plenty of people who hardly use the Internet and certainly don’t go on any social media platforms, even Facebook. We can’t expect every single person to know all the details.
You aren’t a CEO though.
We can tell by the still being alive part.
And? CEOs seem to be welcome there.
All this convenience in tech. We never stopped to ask ourselves what we were giving up. Add protest to the list of sacrifices to the altar of affluence.
If the only form of protest we have is virtual and based on stars and upvotes, then we are doing it very, very wrong
I was enthusiastic over tech then and I did stop, I did also tell these things to my classmates and friends, and was treated as some mix of nerd and luddite simultaneously, if you can believe that.
The Luddite - An anticapitalist Tech blog helped me understand why these seemingly contradictory worldviews don’t necessarily have to be–its a matter of what and for whom technology has been put to use.
As an example, Louis Pasteur gave away his patent for the good of medicine. It sounds almost impossible to believe against the modern backdrop of pharmaceutical companies that don’t even want to develop cures, they want “subscription” customers.
People have been trained now that since no one watches out for them they have to take their pound of flesh however it can be gotten–this is what stands out to people when they talk about societal decay, selfishness and anomie but it can be difficult to put ones finger on without understanding the workings of the machine.
For me it seems that in our childhood and dreams we can fit bigger things in our mind.
Such as that sometimes no one watches out for you and sometimes someone does, and there’s no bigger secret. It’s just this.
Don’t get me wrong, I also hate Monopolies, but a company exercising their rights on their own platform? Fine by me. Just don’t use their platform.
That’s a reasonable stance to take when said company is just one competing in a marketplace. But when they are a monopoly operating a quasi-utility that should be public its not good enough.
It’s interacting in our country, meaning we can do more than only “don’t use it”. When the platform is so massive, has little competition, or most other platforms do the same thing in question… maybe we should do more.
How is spreading lies about a company on a review platform a “protest”?
Surely if there was something to protest about, it would be about things that company had actually done, right?
This is expected for non-legitimate reviews.
To be fair, they also did this for the Kamala spice shop thing, and also the trump mcdonalds thing.
And a lot of other situations with review bombing over the past decade.
Why blame a business for the actions of one person?
Because they are glorified the guy who did the crime and blaming that McDonald’s for snitching and getting him caught.
America is wild, next time you see a wanted person, don’t call the police…
Haven’t they been doing this for review bombing for a number of years now?
Yes, and every review platform does it. It’s why this particular type of slacktivism is particularly useless.
And it’s fair enough, it’s supposed to be a review of the establishment, not your political views.
I dunno, i repeatedly left negative reviews for robinhood. They got removed a couple times, but i can log in to my second account and still see my review, so if you do it enough eventually itll slip through.
The trick is typically to give them two or three stars, and be a bit subtle in telling people the truth.
But not this particular McDick’s, so this is big news. Huge even. /s
I mean, they’re correct.
But fuck McDonald’s.
they did this when TikTok was review-bombed on Play Store a few years back. tas long as they make the rules, we can’t beat them at their own game
I’m guessing they are very specific as to which terms have been violated in their decision to remove.
Probably the same people that fantasizing about the* murder.
