Feuerfest

The Mastodon account Die Gerichte im echten Norden ("The courts in the real north") operated by the German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein made 3 posts regarding the legal risks of leaving negative restaurant reviews on Google.

The three toots translated via DeepL:

(1/3) 🧵 Short #servicepost thread, because we keep seeing that people don't realise what the consequences can be when writing #GoogleReviews:

⚠️ ONLY make negative claims publicly if you can prove that your claims are true in a court of law. Because the burden of proof for the accuracy is usually on you as the author!

Source: https://social.schleswig-holstein.de/@gerichteSH/114312989700813905

The topic regarding "burden of proof" should be well-known for many internet users. No matter if it's regarding eBay or Amazon reviews or (former) employer reviews on sites like Kununu or Glassdoor. As for the latter two, there is a reason why many people say: "Read between the lines". As the company's own legal, HR and marketing departments are constantly stalking the site and removing anything that isn't a 5-star review or a very positively worded 4-star review.

Also I know some people who only read 1-star to 4-star reviews on Amazon as they proofed to be reliable and well-balanced.

🧵 (2/3) ⚠️ ONLY make negative claims publicly if it is worth around EUR 5,000 to you if the worst comes to the worst! Because that's how much a lost lawsuit over a Google comment can cost you!!!

Source: https://social.schleswig-holstein.de/@gerichteSH/114312993849784862

Again "If it comes to the worst". This means: You wanting to take it to court or having no option to solve it out of court. As usually you should be able to just deleted the comment, contact the lawyer (maybe pay some legal fees) and be done with it.

🧵 (3/3) 😱 5,000 EUR????

Yes, because such comments often jeopardise the existence of the companies concerned. The courts set the amounts in dispute correspondingly high. Often around EUR 10,000. And the legal fees and court costs are then calculated on the basis of the amounts in dispute. These quickly add up to around EUR 5,000.

The editorial team (mp)

Source: https://social.schleswig-holstein.de/@gerichteSH/114312997451999281

Such comments jeopardise the existence of companies? Wow. Yeah, I heard bad service, low quality food for a comparatively high price, vermin & pests in the kitchen & storage rooms jeopardise the existence too. And many comments should refer to these topics.

*sigh*

The bigger problem: Honest, non-five-star reviews are removed en masse

Unsurprisingly, many companies contest, report or challenge any review that is not five stars on their profile. This is because public review scores on platforms such as Amazon or Google are a key factor for the vast majority of internet users. In fact, there are even law firms that specialise in this area.

This leads to the problem that reviews are becoming increasingly worthless. Ultimately, this renders the entire rating system obsolete. However, most internet users are unaware of these issues. They don't realise that there is an entire industry dedicated to manipulating every aspect of the 'review economy'.

Bad reviews? Report them as false claims. Most reviewers won't take it to court and won't care. In 99.9% of cases, they wouldn't be able to prove it in court anyway.

Reviewer resists? Take a lawyer.

Got too few reviews? Not enough 5-star reviews? Buy them in bulk. Done.

ARD Marktcheck, a German public television format, even recently made a video about this:

What now?

People in the video came to different solutions. One posted his review on his blog where "ARD Markt" found it and now he is prominently featured in this TV piece.

Another woman recommend that it should be made public, by Google, how many reviews have been deleted for that company. Something I strongly second!

And me? I think that making official reports on food inspections public could counteract this problem in the restaurant industry, as they verify legal obligations and requirements and are therefore far more relevant. Yes, this still doesn't solve the problem of these inspections happening too infrequently, but it's an improvement on the current situation.

The current situation only benefits those who provide poor service

This just goes to show how bad the situation is in the restaurant, hotel and catering industry. Some cities make their mandatory restaurant inspection reports public, while others don't. This is due to problematic laws which could make the city liable for any potential damages caused. The DEHOGA (Deutscher Hotel- und Gaststättenverband, or the German Hotel and Restaurant Association) German Hotel and Restaurant Association), has even publicly attacked the non-profit platform "Topf Secret" from FoodWatch & FragDenStaat.

Topf Secret enables citizens to utilise the German Verbraucherinformationsgesetz (VIG) – the consumer information law – to request reports on health and food safety checks. The results are then published on the platform, making them publicly available to all. The name is a German pun: "Topf" means pot or kettle, and "Topf secret" refers to the phrase "top secret" and the fact that the reports are not actually publicly available.

DEHOGA states that the law sets out which reports must be made public and which must not be. For example, violations must at least result in a minimum fine of €350, and reports must be deleted after six months. Likewise, reports due to construction or documentation deficits are not to be published either.

I understand their point. It's the same in every specialised field. How can information collected and edited by professionals be understood by non-experts? Are problems exaggerated? Are findings that are not at all problematic in terms of food safety presented as such? These are valid concerns, in my opinion.

Companies also need to be protected against abusive reviews. Review platform operators such as Google and Amazon must also fulfil their legal obligations. I'm not arguing against that.

However, there is one major issue that nobody has addressed so far.

I can understand, and would expect, that the DEHOGA protects all its members and lobbies for favourable legislation. On the other hand, there is also a valid concern from citizens about food safety and hygiene in restaurants. In all the TV documentations I have seen about food safety controllers doing their job, I have always heard them say: "I don't eat in restaurants any more. I've seen too much." There are problems.

We are now left with a situation where customers want to be informed, but the respective industry association doesn't want this information to be published. They cite problems with some laws and general problems when information requiring a certain amount of expertise to understand is published.

Hmm...

Hmmmmm...

Let's think about that for a minute.

Who got that expertise? The DEHOGA.

Who could run such a platform for all their members? The DEHOGA.

Who could ensure laws are followed precisely? The DEHOGA.

Who says it's there to ensure a high standard in gastronomy? The DEHOGA.

Who acts in the interests of all their members? The DEHOGA.

Doesn't publicly outing the bad ones automatically reward the good ones? Those who do a good job, that is. Yes, it does.

Why doesn't DEHOGA run this platform? That's a very good question. In fact, they could even cooperate with FoodWatch and FragDenStaat. Thus eliminating any doubts that a form of greenwashing is being practised here.

The current system only really serves the bad ones. Those with subpar service, prices, food quality, or even severe hygiene or safety issues.

But let's face the truth: the DEHOGA is an industry association. Its purpose is to maximise the revenue of its members. It's not there to ensure customers get good service. I wonder if "good service" and "maximising revenue" are connected in any way. Hmm... But I forgot that, for most people, capitalism just means "getting rich quickly with as little work as possible".

And now restaurant owners are wondering why I visit them so rarely.

Friedrich Merz wettert also gegen die Work-Life-Balance?

In seiner Rede im Bundestag sagte er:

Mit Vier-Tage-Woche und Work-Life-Balance werden wir den Wohlstand dieses Landes nicht erhalten können.

Wow. Wie Rückständig ein Mann ein doch denken kann. Was für ein Clown.

Er musste vermutlich noch nie jahrelange, unbezahlte Carearbeit (Haushalt, Kinder, Angehörige) leisten, oder?
Litt nie unter AD(H)S, Autismus, CFS/ME, COPD, Depressionen, Burnout, Multiple Sclerosis oder anderen Erkrankungen, oder?
Hat nie einfach mal so, weil die Gesellschaft ist, wie sie ist, ständig immer nur Druck bekommen, und "Mist fressen müssen" um irgendwie die Miete zahlen zu können?

Kapiert dieser Mensch eigentlich wovon er da redet?
Wie verdammt privilegiert dieser alte, weiße Mann sein Leben lang gewesen sein muss, damit er überhaupt auf die Idee kommen kann so etwas öffentlich im Bundestag(!!) zu sagen?

Wie entkoppelt von der Realität kann man sein?
Friedrich Merz: Ja.

👿

Quelle u.a.: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/bundeskanzler-lehnt-vier-tage-woche-ab-work-life-balance-ist-langst-ein-standortfaktor-13691380.html

That one was a first for me. Someone on Mastodon mentioned me. And at first I was confused. I couldn't remember ever having contact with that person.

Naturally I asked why I was being mentioned. The other toots in that thread didn't make sense to me. Clearly I lacked context.

The person replied with: "Block recommendation for that person/single-user instance."

I groaned immediately. I don't like all this preemptive blocking. Yes, there are scenarios where it can be useful as there are some really nasty & vile Mastodon instances out there. But why should I block that person? Why that person in particular?

I did not know the person who sent me the block recommendation, nor did I know the name of the "blockworthy" person or Mastodon instance. In addition, the admin of the Mastodon instance I use was also mentioned. My best guess was that this person was sending messages to all sorts of administrators of random Mastodon instances. Just the internet being ... the internet.

I replied: "But I have nothing to do with any instance. I'm not an admin anywhere. And why should I block preventively? I actively block when something annoys me. Everything else is a fight against windmills and not worth my time."

And then the following conversation developed:

Internet Person: "Up to you. That's why I also mentioned your instance admin."

Me: "Yes, but why? That took 5 minutes of my time completely unnecessarily. Without you, I would never have found out about the instance. I.. Arg.. Yes, ok. Good. Let's leave it at that. I'm too old and I've been on the internet too long..."

Internet Person: "You were in contact with him, that's why. And whether it costs you 5 minutes of your time is really irrelevant if he simultaneously insults hundreds of others on your instance in a racist, trans- or misogynistic way."

Me: "Ok, THAT is information that I would have liked to have had straight away. Do you still have the link or can you tell me when that was?"

Internet Person: "You were talking about something else, but still. I'm trying to find out from his timeline which major instances have not yet banned him." (Screenshot was attached but isn't shown here.)

It was literally one, ONE reply that person made to a toot of mine about a technical topic. I added several hashtags to that toot and that must have been how that person found my toot. That person doesn't follow me, nor am I. Also I don't know that person. And the conversation happened in February 2025. I had already completely forgotten about it.

I had a brief look at this one-person Mastodon instance and yes, while his profile was private the description that person gave about himself said enough. Also the list of blocked instances he blocked and the reasons he gave for it.

But honestly? I don't fucking care. Hence my answer.

Me: "Thanks for the screenshot! But yes, I'll leave it at that. Since his profile is private, I'll probably never get anything flushed into my feed by accident anyway."

The Internet Person didn't seem happy about this and wished me a good day.

So in the end? What had I gained? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Someone literally made me waste about 20 minutes of my time just because that person thought it'd be better to block this random internet stranger and drag me into their little skirmish. Sorry, I'm too old. I don't have time for this.

Yes, I know that I am somewhat privileged as a white male, despite falling into several categories that the "blockworthy" person seems to truly despise.

But why do I have to carry his weight? Or that of the internet person? I am dead certain I would never have interacted with, let alone read from, that person again. Ever.

One person replied in a perfectly normal way under one of my Toots. Didn't attack anyone, nothing. Yes, this person may still be an asshole (and to be fair, this guy probably is), but why do I have to waste time on it?

Please don't drag me into your private feuds. Thank you.

Today I read a post on LinkedIn (in german) who was criticising that too few IT people speak about their opinions, their views, their stances on various topics. Who was sad that so much Know-how and stories from real projects were left untold.

And I must admit that, at first, I didn't understand what he meant. I was all like:

"What is he talking about? I read a dozens or so post each day from (former) colleagues, people I met on various IT or CCC events or whom I just happen to follow which are highly political. Or taking a technical deep dive on some obscure technology (sometimes even from the 1970s) in which they have taken an interest. I don't get his point."

Only then I happen to realize: Did he solely refer to LinkedIn?

And that explained a lot. Regerettably I must admit: Instantly I had severel prejuicides against that person.

This lead to my writing the following two comments (which I translated into english):

I have to disagree. The IT bubble, at least the one I'm in, is very political. But not on LinkedIn, because that's completely the wrong place for many people. I also had this experience myself when I was researching the status of various alternatives to Google apps for Android mobile phones and noticed how many Russian open source developers have suddenly gone completely silent in the last 3-4 years. Before, the GitHub activity bars were a bright, lush green. Regular posts in the XDA Developers forum, etc. and then, from one day to the next: Nothing. Silence. Completely.

I wrote about it here on LinkedIn. Made a reference to the Ukraine war and Russian recruitment for their war of aggression. And yes, I also got carried away with a ‘4-letter-word Putin!’. (Note: I meant "Fuck Putin!" which I obviously couldn't write again on LinkedIn.)

The result? Less than 10 minutes later, the post was set to invisible. I objected twice, but each time I was automatically rejected by the system.

So sorry, but if you want to see the politically active IT scene: Get out. Get out of the silos of a Silicon Valley tech company. Into the private blogs, into the Fediverse.

I also have a private blog. I'm generally not very reserved with my private opinions. And fortunately, I've received much more praise and recognition for this than criticism.

But not everyone has this luxury. Many companies have very strict social media guidelines on how I am allowed to appear as an employee of a company. And there are judgements that say that simply mentioning your employer in your profile means that these rules apply and you have to comply with them, as you are no longer 100% private.

And some people simply don't want to express their political opinions under their real name. Be it for protection or because they value privacy.

In addition, many IT professionals have a very well-founded (and justified) aversion to so-called social networks. Their content is too soft. Too auto-moderated. Too undemocratic when it comes to appeals against content offences, TOS, etc.

Plus the fact that many networks like LinkedIn are perceived as nothing more than business horseshow (which, unfortunately, it often is).

Yes, LinkedIn is not a good platform if you are interested in IT. For that I recommend the various blogs, Fediverse accounts, some forums (if they are still alive), Newsgroups (if they are still alive) and IRC channels (if they are.. You get the gist..).

Why?

1. IT people are technical, they dislike business mumbo-jumbo and attention farming. They want to write a text about something they care about and discuss it with like-minded individuals. LinkedIn is the completely wrong platform for that.
   • Also, technical content on LinkedIn gets far fewer views, interactions, etc. Believe me, I can see the views here in on my blog and for my content on LinkedIn.
   • Well, yeah, because IT people usually don't like automated feeds that they can't configure. It's much more enjoyable to look in your RSS reader and see which one of the blogs you follow has posted something new.
   • Would you write huge technical texts on LinkedIn knowing that your audience is on a completely different platform? You wouldn't. That's why I blog here and just do a post on LinkedIn to redirect a few people from LinkedIn towards my blog.
2. IT people are generally very prejudiced towards social networks operated by commercial companies. They are well aware of the downsides of Facebook/Meta, Twitter/X, Google Plus, Instagram, TikTok and yes - also LinkedIn. That these networks are about as far away from a democratic platform as you can get. That moderation is largely automated with no chance of "getting a human on the line". Why should we make ourselves dependent on that?
   • LinkedIn doesn't even provide a button to copy the link from a post into your clipboard! All actions are aimed at keeping people on LinkedIn. LinkedIn/Microsoft don't want you to drive people away from LinkedIn! And IT people seriously hate silos and gatekeeping.
3. Many companies have social media guidelines that make it impossible to engage in meaningful conversations about sensitive topics.
4. IT people value their privacy. If they have a LinkedIn account, it shows their real name and employer. And maybe they don't want a connection between the two.
5. Some may see blogging as a hobby that they do in their spare time, so they stay away from LinkedIn.

And there are maybe more points I forgot to mention..

Photo by Erik Mclean: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-room-with-black-and-white-seats-8266814/

Pixelfed's creator Daniel Supernault recently published an open letter addressed at Mark Zuckerberg. The reason being that posts containing links to Pixelfed are marked as Spam by Facebook/Meta and are deleted immediately (404 Media on the topic).

My opinion? The open letter is written exactly in the way it needs to written. Read it for yourself:

Dear Mark,

I hope this finds you well. I noticed something interesting today – it seems Instagram is blocking links to my little open-source project. You know, the one that lets people share photos without harvesting their personal data or forcing algorithmic feeds on them.

I have to admit, I’m flattered. Who would’ve thought a small team of volunteers could build something that would catch your attention? We’re just trying to give people a choice in how they share their memories online. No VCs, no surveillance capitalism, just code and community.

Remember when Facebook started? It was about connecting people, not maximizing engagement metrics. Our project might be tiny compared to Instagram, but we’re staying true to that original spirit of social media – giving people control over their online presence without turning them into products.

You could’ve ignored us. Instead, by blocking our links, you’ve given us the best endorsement we could ask for. You’ve confirmed what we’ve been saying all along – that big tech is more interested in protecting their walled gardens than fostering genuine innovation.

Every time you block a link to our platform, you remind people why we built it in the first place. Your action tells them there are alternatives worth exploring, ones that respect their privacy and agency. So thank you, Mark. You’ve turned our little project into a symbol of resistance against digital monopolies.

Perhaps one day you’ll remember what it felt like to be the underdog, building something because you believed in its potential to make the internet better. Our doors are always open if you want to remember what that feels like.

Best regards,

Daniel Supernault

P.S. Keep blocking those links. Every error message is just free advertising for the social web.

This again brought up a topic: How do I treat companies/social networks that literally block the competition?

Easy answer: I avoid them. Or migrate away from them. Then I delete all my data from their network and stay away from them. Sometimes even going so far as to add their domains to my DNS-Blocklist, so I never ever accidentally browse their site again.

Why?

I don't like being forced into a cage. The term "Internet" stands for interconnected networks. Attempting to create isolated "walled gardens" contradicts my core beliefs about how the Internet should function. If platforms like Facebook/Meta or Twitter/X try to oust the competition I'll gladly start using the competition - provided they uphold the principles of openness and connectivity.

There is a straightforward and logical rationale for this: The Internet is immense, and no single service can encompass everything - whether in terms of functionality or content. If a platform chooses to isolate itself in an effort to retain its users, it has every right to do so. However, it must also acknowledge the consequence of losing a few users along the process.

Photo by Madison Inouye: https://www.pexels.com/photo/self-care-isn-t-selfish-signage-2821823/

One of the attributes which is used to describe me, and that I get to hear regularly, is, that I am critical. Sometimes this comes in the form of an accolades that I have good discernment or that I am brave enough to publicly speak out things which many dare not to. And sometimes in form of constructive feedback that I should focus more on the positive side of a certain task or project.

However I always try to not be a hypocrite. I regularly question myself if I am the one to blame. If I could have done better, missed a crucial piece of information or if my words contradict my actions. And if they do: Do I have a just reason for this? A cause that explains it in a comprehensible way?

Additionally I try to keep my emotions out. Yes, I do not succeed in this 100% of the time. After all I'm not a machine. Still manage in succeeding often enough to not look like a raging barbarian. Failing to think over the issue in a neutral way often leads to missing key points. And makes it hard to see it through the eyes of the other involved parties/stakeholders. This in turn causes inaccurate statements or incoherent lines of reasoning. Nothing of this helps to convince other people or to get to the root of the problem.

Therefore it shouldn't surprise anyone that I don't like hypocrisy. Especially so when it touches a topic I have first hand personal experience with and is important to me.

Mental Health Day

October the 10th is the international day of awareness for all topic related to Mental Health. Be it a proper Work-Life-Balance, the poor care for people suffering from diseases such as depression (and many others) or the sadly still existing prejudices against people who have suffered from - or still do - Mental Health issues.

A complicated & delicate topic

Mental Health issues are a tricky thing. In nearly all cases I got to know in detail the ones suffering from it are not the ones responsible, nor to blame. Some people crumble under all the injustice in this world. Shattering while trying to just make things right but were doomed from the start as a single person can't beat the company, yet alone the system.

Others experienced such malevolent acts, even without getting hurt physically, that it left them in ruins. Just think about the child which constantly experienced injustices from it parents. Never getting to know what the word family should mean.

Yet these very same people have to accumulate an immense amount of strength and pick up the fight for their own sanity. Just to live a happy life.

And then there are outsiders who make fun of them for that. Who belittle them. Who question their ability to ever regain their mental health. That they can ever be a productive person again.

These are the people I strongly recommend a therapy - or at least speaking with, for example, an recovered alcoholic or a rape survivor. As the immense lack of sympathy and humility they show is shocking. They can't even imagine what these people have been through and how much work therapy is. Yet, again, some people make fun of therapy as they think of it as "It's just singing in a circle and clapping with your hands." No, it's not.

A special place in hell

And then.. There are certain companies I know of. Posting on Linkedin, Twitter, Instagram and all those other social-media and business platform how "Mental Health aware" they are. How much they care to enable their employees to live a good work-life balance. Etc. And so on. Yada Yada.

All this while they engage in union-busting with the help of a specialised law-firm. And have absolutely no issues in threatening, admonishing or taking people to court over nonsense. Sometimes even utilizing their knowledge of the mental health issues of certain employees to even quicken the process of making them resign (or leaving with a severance package and a signed NDA). Effectively using it as a weapon against them. Just to reach their goal of preventing a union.

And the only thing these people did was trying to organize a union to get their rights and better their situation.

Yeah, I seriously hope those people get a special place in hell.