this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
557 points (85.7% liked)
Memes
45885 readers
1916 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is that true? I just checked the reviews for all of the McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania on Google Maps ^[4]^ and none of them appear to have been review bombed recently or have any mention of the UHI shooter ^[1][2][3]^.
References
If you're willing to believe a couple of random news outlets:
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/09/altoona-mcdonalds-luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare https://www.ibtimes.com/altoona-mcdonalds-flooded-angry-1-star-reviews-after-arrest-suspected-unitedhealthcare-ceo-3754683
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/9/altoona-pennsylvania-mcdonald-reviews-go-negative-/
Not hard to imagine thag G**gle would be on the case, deleting reviews by now.
Thanks for the sources! I wish that news articles would actually cite how they know things — it's annoying to me that their statements regarding the reviews are essentially conjecture — I don't want to have to feel like I need to just take their word for it.
Yep. When I actually started reading some news articles and quickly found out that I was on my own if I want to learn more or verify what I just read, really put me off that stuff.
When I actually post something informative, it seems crazy to not include the links I already have anyway. And make sure it's viewable in the wayback machine if it's something so predictably ephemeral...
Citing sources is a practice that I think is sorely lacking in public discourse currently. I appreciate all efforts to quell misinformation and disinformation.
Their reputation and past reporting is supposed to back up things they state as facts (like assuming that reviews they cite are real) for practicality and brevity. Imagine having to document every bit of background research in a presentable way.
They could have included screenshots though.
And the skepticism is healthy. I do personally ‘trust’ Axios (which I read almost daily but regularly double check).
Well, presumably, that's their job ^[1]^. Being responsible takes effort /s.
References
I don't agree that citing sources affects that. For example, anecdotally, a citation can just take the form of a footnote in the document.
Imo, this in an example of an appeal to authority — an argument isn't sound because it should be, but because it is. I believe that it's a disservice to the truth and constructive public discourse to not cite one's claims.
Fair point.
This one has a review posted 12h ago with 800 upvotes mentioning a rat problem in the kitchen:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/feD3kJKApzpBCfA39
Good catch. Given that that it's currently still available ^[1]^, I would guess that it's likely not the case that Google is purging reviews. Imo, one review is hardly review bombing, but at least that's proof of one claim made by a news outlet ^[2]^ (It's terrible, imo, that we have to be the ones fact checking claims being made by news organizations. Doesn't that make us the journalists?).
References
and gone newest review was from 2 weeks ago