[d1sxeyes]

You have the cart before the horse here.

OP receives value from Google Maps for free. For whatever private reasons they may have, they decide to give value back for free[]. OP is under no obligation to 'donate labour'.

[] Assumption is here that there's no 'value exchange', and OP's contribution is not directly related to value they get out of Maps. (as opposed to private bittorrent trackers which maintain an upload ratio requirement etc.)

[kmerfeld]

Google sells ads on google maps. Users are as much of a product as the directions.

I've never claimed anyone is under an obligation to donate their labor, I pointed out that it is work and some companies are earning profits from products that require this type of unpaid work to function

[d1sxeyes]

If Google removed all social functionality and user contribution possibilities from Maps, then they'd still be able to monetise it through ads and users would still be the product, so that's not really relevant to the discussion.

I would argue that the product does not require unpaid work to function. The other question is whether OP providing reviews to Google is a) really work, and b) really unpaid.

I think there are good arguments it's not 'work' (although this is more of a question of semantics), but there are very strong arguments it's not unpaid. Obviously there's no exchange of money, but Google offer a platform for reviewers to share their thoughts and ideas with an audience.