[danielweber]

Your words: "Our immediate response should be to post negative reviews based on the revelation that none of the other reviews are trustworthy."

You don't know anything about the quality of their online reviews. No, I mean it, you really don't: 5 minutes wasn't enough time for you to investigate this policy and see how long it's been in place. Perhaps this policy is brand new and hasn't affected any online reviews yet, which means "none of their other reviews are trustworthy" would be incorrect. [1] Yet you implore that we should have an "immediate response." Quick, before we have a chance to think this through!!!

There's nothing our primate lizard brains love better than collectively kicking the crap out of an enemy who can't fight back. That isn't something to be celebrated or encouraged.

Slow down, take a deep breath, and count to 10.

[1] Doing this research now doesn't excuse a call for an "immediate response."

[Karunamon]

It's actually been there since at least 2013:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130301124243/http://www.unions...

Let 'em take the dings. An example must be made of this kind of anti-consumer behavior.

[danielweber]

pour encourager les autres

[hawkharris]

This is very pretentious.

[hawkharris]

You're regurgitating a common narrative about online witch hunts. While I agree that they're unethical, that's clearly not what's happening here. The comments that have superseded yours in this thread echo that sentiment. The other commenters and I agree that if an organization creates a public policy, people should be able to criticize the group on the basis of that policy. It's as simple as that.

[hnal943]

Yeah, everybody's doing it.

[hawkharris]

I'm sure that you normally have intelligent things to add to the conversation and your comment above is just a one-off.