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, in english: 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 its members' revenue by lobbying for favourable legislation, and so on. 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.

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.

Photo by Veronika Valdova: https://www.pexels.com/photo/cemetery-of-fallen-soldiers-and-veterans-930711/

This is a Latin saying commonly translated to "Speak no ill of the dead." And I somewhat agree with that, however, due to a recent event in Germany I realized that I apply this behaviour in a more contextualized way.

But what happened? Ursula Haverbeck died. She was one of Germany's most known holocaust deniers. Despite being born in 1928 and therefore must having experienced - or at least heard of - the horrors first-hand. She must have seen people vanishing at night. Burning shops from "unwanted people" etc.

Yet she denied the holocaust publicly several times - which is a crime punishable by law in Germany. And to prison she went. I think between 3 to 5 times. For a sentence of, in total, 4 years.

Now she is dead at the age of 96.

And of course there are many jokes about her dead, people being generally happy that this mean-spirited woman is gone, etc. and so on. Just the Internet being ... well, The Internet.

Personally I smiled about some remarks or jokes but saw a line crossed when people were proposing to do illegal things to her grave. That's definitely against too many of my personal viewpoints. No matter if you believe in (a/any) god at all, our of which faith you are, a graveyard is sacred ground. A place where the living can meet the dead on a highly personal level. To ease the sorrow of a lost one. Completely disconnected from any religious dogmas or viewpoints - no matter if you share the same faith as the deceased person or not.
Religious arguments aside: Desecrating just one grave affects all people who have a connection to this graveyard. Totally not acceptable.

However there are many people who post comments with "Speak no ill of the dead." in order to ask people to stop making fun of her. And the common reply is: "There is nothing wrong in telling the truth about a dead person."

And I second this. We do not speak well of many people from the history of mankind either. Of course Hitler & Stalin immediately come to mind.
Well, certain people do, of course. But most people will be very determined in what they think of such people.

So, yes. Say anything about a dead person. As long as it is true. But keep in mind to whom you are speaking.

And this is what I realized. When I am at a funeral I won't go to the griefing partner/family-member/whomever and tell this person: "Ah, well you know.. I never really like X anyway." No, you won't. Common courtesy. Not the time nor the place to play games or live your personal vendetta. And if you can't bring yourself to not say anything like this: Be a nice human being and don't show up at all. Sometimes staying away from a funeral you have been invited to already says more than enough.

Maybe you would state that you will still miss this person - despite giving you hard times every now and then. Again focusing on the good. And this should be fine. As usually the bereaved know the character of the deceased very well for themselves.

For me, the saying therefore reads as: "Speak no lie of the dead and mind who you are talking to."

If we can collectively agree on this, than the Internet will be a better place.