If Google started to show how many reviews were removed, it was because the lawfare started to seriously affect the ratings.
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.
§ 7 UWG Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb
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".
Who dictates the "should”?
The German law simply removes the need to assume anything.
As an European, this attitude is absolutely fucking shocking.
Police force their way into my home without excellent cause to do so? I'd want someone executed. It would be unforgivable.
It has nothing to do with the guns, but with the absolutely gross violation of the most basic rights codified by the ECHR.
>This would be more about privacy violations and unnecessary chicanery.
Which is actually worse than the typical American shooting. US cops do not typically go to the scene planning to murder someone, in this case the German cops very much knowingly went to harass someone for calling the German interior minister a prick. It is absolutely egregious premeditated harassment.
German minister of interior, the guy in charge of the police, sending the cops to harass people for calling him a prick. Even the current US admin is not so thin-skinned.
So maybe Americans should worry about their own business and not tell a country with a much longer history what is best for them?
Idk what exactly happend. But somehow they got approval from court to collect evidence of the crime (electronic devices) via house search. As said, the harm caused by the house search was later deemed unproportional to the crime.
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.
You just have to link the review and they will send Google a legal document to delete it.
Make one big enough, and you’ll even have people trying to play it crooked by pretending to play it straight.
Its where the DRM bypass software lives these days, along with Bypass Paywalls Clean.
For the plebes, it is a civil tort.
For the AI companies, its required for "training". Rules dont apply to too-large-to-fail professional for-profit pirates.
But damn you if you try to make a Netflix-clone with every video. Wew.
Anyway, Germany is probably one of the few places where this happens. The issue isn't necessarily that reviews can be challenged. The issue is that users aren't informed when they leave a review that they may later be required to provide proof of their visit.
I once left a negative review of a very popular touristy business in Germany after a genuinely terrible experience. I included photos and detailed information, yet they still challenged the review, claiming I had never been a customer. Google then required me to provide additional evidence to prove that I had actually visited the place.
What made it even more frustrating is that they challenged the review two years in a row. After the second challenge, I wrote to them that if they continued contesting the review, I would consider it harassment and pursue legal action. After that, they stopped.
What I find pretty shady is that most businesses seem to wait a year or two before contesting reviews. By that point, most people no longer have receipts, invoices, or other documentation. If they challenged reviews immediately, customers would be much more likely to still have that evidence available. In my case, I take photos frequently, so Google accepted my proof and kept the review online.
Ironically, after going through this process myself, I've come to believe that some form of verification should probably be standard worldwide. Requiring reviewers to provide evidence that they were actually customers could help reduce fake reviews. But if that's going to be the standard, it should be clearly communicated upfront, before people submit their reviews.
Another related issue I have with Google Maps is that, at least in my home country, some places have reviews disabled because Google considers them too prone to polarization or controversy. Schools are one example.
Personally, I think that's a terrible idea. I'd rather be able to read the reviews and make up my own mind. Instead, Google, in its infinite wisdom, decides that certain topics are too contentious for users to see feedback at all.
I find that to be one of the worst decisions made by the Google Maps team. Hiding reviews doesn't eliminate disagreement or bias, it just removes information that users could otherwise evaluate for themselves.
Truthful statement seem to be a defense for Germany, though. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...
> Section 192
> Insult despite proof of the truth
> Proof of the truth of the asserted or disseminated fact does not preclude punishment in accordance with section 185 if the insult results from the form of the assertion or dissemination or the circumstances under which it was made.
Making a claim of 3 star service, without providing 3 star service evidence, isn't any different than a claim like they don't clean the dishes enough. Sure, you didn't write out the exact words, but by submitting the review, you still submitted such a claim, and so it remains a question of if you provided evidence to prove it, which gets into how deep the legal system wants the evidence verified (is a picture enough, or do you need to provide evidence the picture is of the store at the date and time relevant to your review).
Is that defamation? That isn't a statement of fact, that's just relaying what you heard.
If I relay what the Daily Mail says, am I also guilty of defamation, or can I rely on what others say?