Two examples of commercial censorship: for negative reviews, the hotel fines visitors and the restaurant wins in court

    Toffler has a great metaphor in Revolutionary Wealth. Imagine a freeway and cars moving along it. The left-most lane, speed of 100 miles per hour, this car symbolizes the fastest-changing reality in America - business. In our case, it will be a network, Google and many social services. And the rightmost row is a speed of 25 miles per hour. Along the far right are government bureaucracy and classic businesses. In other words, the state and the dense family business are simply not keeping pace with progress. Not having time so much that they make decisions contrary to common sense and logic. And now two examples from the title

    1. American hotel fined users for negative reviews

    Owners of Union Street Guest House in the New York Hudson district decided to fine their guests with $ 500 for every negative review posted on the Internet. Hoteliers returned money to tourists only if unflattering reviews were deleted.

    As the tape writes :
    “The hotel is popular as a venue for weddings. At the same time, the newlyweds were obliged to make a deposit, from which the hotel owners threatened to deduct $ 500 for each negative review left by the newlyweds, their relatives or friends.
    Previously, hotel employees were limited only to aggressive responses to the negative reviews of guests: "This is complete nonsense" or "She came up with all this."

    You can exclaim, it’s illegal. Let them go to court and bend the hotel for a large amount. Ok, here's a second court example:

    2. In France, the blogger was fined for criticizing the restaurant

    A certain blogger went to a restaurant. He didn’t like the restaurant, about which he wrote on his blog under the heading “Place on Cap Ferrat to be avoided.” Google indexed this review and began to display it in 4th position for a search query with the name of the restaurant. The restaurant has dropped attendance.

    What do you think the restaurant did? That's right, sued the blogger, because This entry damages the restaurant’s reputation. What did the court do? That's right, he fined the blogger 2,500 euros and forced to change the title. Is the truth about the restaurant reflected in the article? The judge was not very interested.

    Which of these can be concluded: alas, no matter how our righteous anger may be, we are not protected by leaving negative feedback. Not protected neither legislatively nor technologically. Information about us hangs in the public domain and search engines in no way protect us or our privacy. You can, of course, leave reviews anonymously, but this is akin to the notes on the fence.

    Also popular now: