Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday September 18 2016, @09:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the internets-never-forget dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

If you have ever wanted to see an indie video game developer commit PR suicide, then 2016 is your lucky year. In what appears to be an attempt to outdo Hello Games and their No Man's Sky debacle, indie developer Digital Homicide has filed a personal injury lawsuit against 100 people on Steam for writing negative reviews and comments about their various games. As the 100 people listed in the lawsuit are identified only by their Steam usernames, Digital Homicide has also subpoenaed Valve, the company behind Steam, for the actual names of the 100 people that they are suing.

As if that wasn't enough, Digital Homicide is allegedly considering another lawsuit directly against Valve in an attempt to create a digital "safe space" for developers on Steam. This effectively means that on top of the $18 million that Digital Homicide is seeking in damages in their original lawsuit against the 100 Jane and John Does, Digital Homicide wants Valve to create an environment on Steam where developers are safe from things like "harassment, verbal and written assault, libel, and slander." Mr. Bob Lawsuitsfeedmyfamily, a retired legal advisor that specializes in the study of frivolous lawsuits, stated that the two cases will likely "force Digital Homicide to change their company's name to Digital Suicide." Even in a best case scenario where Digital Homicide somehow wins their lawsuits against Valve, "they will likely be ridiculed and hated for as long as the Internet can remember" Lawsuitsfeedmyfamily said.

Source: http://techraptor.net/content/kekraptor-digital-homicide-sues-valve-wants-steam-safe-space


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday September 18 2016, @11:48PM

    by Appalbarry (66) on Sunday September 18 2016, @11:48PM (#403546) Journal

    If it weren't Valve it would be someone else.

    The problem with the Utopian ideal of "every man is a critic" is that a large community of people either jump in to trash (or praise) things that they don't understand, or pile on because of nothing more than juvenile malice.

    It was only a matter of time before Yelp, or TripAdvisor, or the Play store got shot down for not policing what was posted. Regardless of what your business actually does, a motivated group can cause you significant damage regardless of whether they've ever even done business with you.

    I expect we're close to the point where product reviews will be closely moderated to weed out the hostile and uninformed crap that you often find.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @12:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @12:23AM (#403555)

    I expect we're close to the point where product reviews will be closely moderated to weed out the hostile and uninformed crap that you often find.

    Or maybe people can grow a spine and stop expecting that they never be allowed to see hostile and uninformed crap (though mere hostility is not necessarily "crap"). Their expectations are wildly unrealistic.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @12:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @12:52AM (#403563)

      I expect we're close to the point where product reviews will be closely moderated to weed out the hostile and uninformed crap that you often find.

      Or maybe people can grow a spine and stop expecting that they never be allowed to see hostile and uninformed crap (though mere hostility is not necessarily "crap"). Their expectations are wildly unrealistic.

      More often than not, the problem is not people who need to "grow a spine" but rather people who post hostile and uninformed crap on review sites just for the lulz. The only thing such people contribute is white noise. The problem that needs addressing is how to cut down on that white noise so that real discussion can be allowed to continue. That is the issue. Or, so it seems to me.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 19 2016, @01:09AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 19 2016, @01:09AM (#403569) Homepage Journal

        Yeah, pretty much nobody does that for the lulz. They do it because a product offends them. Just like every consumer group ever. They simply have a different style of communication.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @05:52AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @05:52AM (#403628)

        I would rather risk the chance of encountering content you subjectively deem "noise" than seeing some censored/watered-down discussion. I greatly prefer how SoylentNews handles things.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday September 19 2016, @02:40PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Monday September 19 2016, @02:40PM (#403787)

        it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer

        Benjamin Franklin, [wikipedia.org] though various other people have phrased it similarly before and after it sounds like

        It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished. ... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever.

        John Adams

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @05:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @05:10PM (#403850)

          I'm not following your "logic" here. We are discussing online reviews. Specifically, bogus reviews added by people who never used the product. Specifically, bogus reviews posted by people who never used the product just to have a few lulz in taking down a product. This is not a courtroom, so what we might charitably refer to your analogy fails. Furthermore, in a courtroom there is this rather important guy called a judge. He gets to decide what the opposing attorneys get to say in his courtroom. Woe betide thee if you should decide that you are going to try trolling him. Trust me, it just won't go over too well. Yes, the judge has near god-like powers to moderate the discussion in his courtroom, even to the point of indefinitely jailing offenders.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @12:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @12:41AM (#403559)

    I expect we're close to the point where product reviews will be closely moderated to weed out the hostile and uninformed crap that you often find.

    I've been thinking about how one might do this. To that end, it seems to me that one way is to partially lift the veil of anonymity. In order to review a product someone would have to upload a receipt of said product paid for with a CC. The CC receipt would not be visible to anyone except a site curator. Then if someone believes that the reviewer is trolling they could flag it for inspection by the site curator who could either keep the review on the site, as is, or remove it if he felt it was just a troll. I would think that requiring a receipt with a CC# and their signature would chase away at least 99% of the trolls. On the other hand, making it so that this personal information can only be viewed by the site curator would keep businesses from retaliating against those who post negative reviews. Just an idea.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 19 2016, @01:11AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 19 2016, @01:11AM (#403570) Homepage Journal

      Or you could, you know, listen to your customers and what they have to say. People being pissed off at shoddy merchandise is a damned relevant data point if you wish to continue making money in your industry.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Monday September 19 2016, @01:46AM

        by Francis (5544) on Monday September 19 2016, @01:46AM (#403581)

        The issue with inaccurate reviews is less about what the company does and more about what other consumers do. If there's a design flaw in a hat that causes it to catch on fire and burn, that's something that the manufacturer can verify or disprove, but if the review is posted online, that's something that's going to affect other people's views of the products.

        Unfortunately, there's no real fix to the problem. I tend to read the negative reviews and the positive reviews and try to figure out if the comments are even possible when I'm reading them. Often times you can get a better sense of it, but there's always a bit of faith involved with purchases.
        '

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 19 2016, @01:53AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 19 2016, @01:53AM (#403584) Homepage Journal

          That's because there is no "problem". Consumers have every right to hate a product and say so, even if they have never tried it.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1) by Francis on Monday September 19 2016, @01:09PM

            by Francis (5544) on Monday September 19 2016, @01:09PM (#403713)

            That is a complete load of crap Buzzy. Reviews are for people who are trying to decide whether or not they want to buy a product, jack asses leaving reviews for things that they haven't actually bought and used makes it harder for people considering to buy the product.

            The fact that this crap comment got modded to 5 makes me weep for the future.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 19 2016, @02:43PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 19 2016, @02:43PM (#403788) Homepage Journal

              So, you wouldn't want the right protest a product called fag-b-gone that could keep children from being born with homosexual tendencies? Please, if you believe the crap coming out of your mouth it's only because you haven't thought it through very well.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 1) by Francis on Monday September 19 2016, @03:26PM

                by Francis (5544) on Monday September 19 2016, @03:26PM (#403800)

                That's a strawman. I don't think writing a review like that serves any purpose other than to demonstrate that you're a jackass. If the product is named that and has that stated purpose, then precisely what is a protest review going to accomplish they've already made it quite clear what the product is and what it's supposed to do?

                Reviews are about the product and whether or not it accomplishes the selling points or represents a good value. These sorts of reviews are usually left by competitors looking to smear the competition and they serve no purpose other than to make it hard for potential customers to decide whether or not the product does what it says and whether or not the price for the features is appropriate.

                If you want to protest a product, then protest the product. Leaving inaccurate reviews just makes you a shitty person. If you didn't buy the product, then you don't get to leave a review. There's plenty of places you can protest the product that are more appropriate, the company's FB and Twitter accounts are much more appropriate. You can also create content on 3rd party sites where you protest it.

                Personally, if I see a ton of 1 star reviews by people who clearly didn't buy the product, I just ignore them and upgrade the rating to something a bit more in keeping with the reviews by people who actually bought it. Similarly, if I see a ton of 5 star ratings that are clearly by people who didn't buy, I just ignore those and drop it down a bit.

                All the fake reviews do is make it harder for people to decide whether or not the good or service is worth buying. The people reviewing without purchasing are just self-entitled jackasses that screw things up for everybody else.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 19 2016, @04:37PM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 19 2016, @04:37PM (#403832) Homepage Journal

                  Okay, how about a more on the nose example since you seem to be all about being pedantic today. Diablo III got and deserved pissed off reviews from people who did not buy the game for dropping LAN play, a key element of previous Diablo games.

                  But I'm sure this won't convince you. You do so lurve your safe spaces where you never have to hear anything that might upset you.

                  Except for here. You keep coming back here. Which tells me you don't need or even desire safe spaces at all and are full of shit from your toes to your toupee.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday September 19 2016, @08:15PM

                    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Monday September 19 2016, @08:15PM (#403947)

                    For safe spaces to accomplish anything, you do need to get away from them on occasion. Otherwise, you have just set up an echo chamber,

                    That said, (as a corollary?), "safe spaces" must be limited in scope.

                  • (Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:23PM

                    by charon (5660) on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:23PM (#404550) Journal

                    Diablo III got and deserved pissed off reviews from people who did not buy the game for dropping LAN play, a key element of previous Diablo games.

                    Then how are these reviews in any acceptable way? A review is a critical evaluation of an event or product by a person who has direct experience of it. The people protesting LAN capability by flooding their 1 star "reviews" had no experience with the game and couldn't even begin to tell me whether or not I would enjoy it. It was widely known before release that LAN play wasn't included, and any aware potential purchaser would know that. And if not, caveat emptor, right? What did the tons of 1 star ratings by non-purchasers bring to the table? And so in the larger discussion, if my sister's boyfriend's nephew's roommate had a bad experience at the local diner, why should I be entitled to leave a 1 star review at yelp?

                    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 21 2016, @11:25PM

                      by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @11:25PM (#404950) Journal

                      And if not, caveat emptor, right?

                      Yes indeed, "buyer beware". The buyer should be wary, and to do that they must be aware. Wouldn't it be great if we had some way for others to leave information about a product somewhere that potential buyers could find it before making their decision? Sort of a review of the product, perhaps...

                      And so in the larger discussion, if my sister's boyfriend's nephew's roommate had a bad experience at the local diner, why should I be entitled to leave a 1 star review at yelp?

                      Same reason you're entitled to make a big sign about it and stand out in front of the restaurant all day.

                      A review is a critical evaluation of an event or product by a person who has direct experience of it

                      I can find plenty of places which state that a review is a critical evaluation. I'm not finding a single one which includes the "direct experience" part. The part of the definition you choose to emphasize isn't actually part of the definition at all. You don't always need direct experience to evaluate something.

                      • (Score: 1) by charon on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:21AM

                        by charon (5660) on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:21AM (#405055) Journal

                        It doesn't make any sense to call such a thing a review then: it's hearsay. When you read a review of a movie, do you not expect the reviewer to have seen it? Sure, they can say, "I heard it sucks", but to leave out the "I heard" part is inherently dishonest.

                        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday September 22 2016, @11:18PM

                          by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday September 22 2016, @11:18PM (#405334) Journal

                          It doesn't make any sense to call such a thing a review then: it's hearsay.

                          So is every single comment on this website! We read an article, we consider what we've heard/read, and we respond. I still think there's some value in that. And as far as the retailer is concerned it doesn't matter because all reviews are hearsay anyway -- they *might* be able to verify that you're an owner under certain specific circumstances, but they certainly can't ever verify your experiences. Furthermore there are many aspects of a product which simply cannot be reviewed in any other way. I'd find a link to a report about the labor conditions of a company's factory to be very useful in guiding my purchasing decisions for example, and I'd love to see that included in a review, even though the person writing that review probably doesn't have direct experience working in that factory.

                          There's far more to any product than just the color and style. I'd even be interested in reviews for totally different products (ie, how does this company handle support requests *in general*; how does this class of product perform *in general*) before I'd be interested in the ubiquitous "the color isn't exactly as displayed on my monitor!" or "this product that's a tenth of the price of the nearest competitor is a cheap piece of crap!" reviews. Because you don't need to read someone's review to figure that out. Good reviews say something you can't already deduce from the product page; truly great reviews say something you wouldn't have known even if you went to a shop and handled the display model. Where that information came from isn't particularly important, assuming it's accurate.

                          • (Score: 1) by charon on Friday September 23 2016, @03:45AM

                            by charon (5660) on Friday September 23 2016, @03:45AM (#405407) Journal

                            My argument is not saying you shouldn't have the information you want. What I am saying is when I read customer reviews, I already have my crap filter tuned extremely high to pick out the useful info. Adding another axis for misinformation is not helpful to me, and I seriously doubt it would be for you either. I barely trust a customer to tell me that the item in their hands is functional, you think I am going to trust them to tell me how many breaks the sweatshop workers get?

                            I certainly see the utility in having all the extra, non-product-related, information you are asking for, such as labor conditions, company reputation, customer service, etc. But if you're really interested in labor conditions before you buy, that information is available from trustworthy sources, not from xXgUnShOwXx1999@aol.com.

                            It may very well be we are talking about different types of review here. I mean the three line blurbs on consumer websites (e.g. "Works great, would buy again, A+++++++++", "Was delivered on saturday instead of friday, would give zero if I could"). You may be talking about long-form reviews where it would be expected that a reviewer has some experience with using similar products, writing coherently, making relevant information understandable, and giving a nuanced opinion. And yes, actually having direct experience with it.

                            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday September 23 2016, @07:45PM

                              by urza9814 (3954) on Friday September 23 2016, @07:45PM (#405681) Journal

                              My argument is not saying you shouldn't have the information you want. What I am saying is when I read customer reviews, I already have my crap filter tuned extremely high to pick out the useful info.

                              I see you have already found the best possible solution -- having *your* crap filter tuned high. Because your crap filter and my crap filter aren't filtering the same things. The problem with reviews isn't that there's too much crap, the problem with reviews is the retailers don't generally give us any useful options for filtering them to get to the information we want.

                              I certainly see the utility in having all the extra, non-product-related, information you are asking for, such as labor conditions, company reputation, customer service, etc. But if you're really interested in labor conditions before you buy, that information is available from trustworthy sources, not from xXgUnShOwXx1999@aol.com.

                              I'd love to have that information from more trustworthy sources, but retailers aren't going to put that on their product page, and there's no single unified source to go to. Reviews are a good solution, particularly if the issue got some public visibility at some point. If there's twenty different companies making the same product, I certainly might take xXgUnShOwXx1999@aol.com's word for it and just go grab a different one. If there's only one or two options, I might thank them for the tip and go look into it further. Either way I may not know if they hadn't posted a review. Even if you don't trust the reviewer, they still give valuable information about which trustworthy sources you should be looking at next.

                              "Works great, would buy again, A+++++++++", "Was delivered on saturday instead of friday, would give zero if I could"

                              Those aren't extremely valuable alone, but they're certainly useful in aggregate. If I'm just buying something for myself, I'm just gonna look at the average number of stars or whatever that such reviewers give. If I'm trying to scientifically determine which company is better (possibly as part of a consumer protection study, or a study by the company or its competitors for example) then it might be worth looking at. One person saying it was a day late is no big deal; a hundred people saying that indicates a real problem. Likewise, if most of the reviews are just totally satisfied A++++, then your product works but isn't particularly engaging or interesting. I'd rather have the information in case someone wants it and just hide it for those who don't instead of trying to cut it off at the source and discarding it entirely.

                          • (Score: 2) by cykros on Sunday September 25 2016, @04:30AM

                            by cykros (989) on Sunday September 25 2016, @04:30AM (#406164)

                            We read an article, we consider what we've heard/read, and we respond.

                            Wait, when did we start reading articles here? Last I knew it was all about the headlines, and if you were lucky, some had read the summary. This is starting to sound like homework...

            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:55PM

              by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:55PM (#404944) Journal

              Reviews are for people who are trying to decide whether or not they want to buy a product, jack asses leaving reviews for things that they haven't actually bought and used makes it harder for people considering to buy the product.

              So what you're saying is that if some company horribly abuses their workers, that nobody should consider that when buying the products, and that nobody should be allowed to mention that in the product reviews? That seems a perfectly legitimate review of the product in my opinion. You don't have to buy the product to know those facts -- in fact, if you know these facts you probably WON'T buy the product -- but they certainly could and should influence someone's decision to purchase that product. I care a hell of a lot more about that than I care if the color wasn't exactly as it appeared on your monitor or that "x thread count equivalent" bed sheets aren't actually x thread count. What you consider useful reviews, I consider garbage. And vice-versa perhaps.

              The purpose of a product review is so I don't have to go to fifty different blogs to figure out if the product is worth buying. But if we fully sanitize the reviews of any information other than "Yup, I bought it, and it [did/didn't] do what it says" then you might as well just have a thumbs up/thumbs down system and remove the reviews entirely. Because they're no longer useful at that point, because I've gotta go to fifty different blogs to get the full information anyway!

              Certainly the *display* of reviews should have some intelligence and filtering. There should be at least an attempt to determine which reviews I am likely to find useful, which ones I won't, which ones are duplicates, etc. Different people care about different aspects of a product, and therefore they'll find different reviews helpful and different reviews to be crap. If you're going to filter that sort of thing you need to filter based on the user who is viewing it, not based on the content that was posted, because the user who is viewing it is the one who determines its value.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @04:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @04:01PM (#403817)

            Agreed, so long as they don't misrepresent themselves and suggest they are speaking from actual experience with the product. That starts toeing the line into fraud.

            I personally would probably go a step further and say they can't willful disruption of legitimate business, too (think DDOS'ing a comment board with negative comments)... but this is definitely a grey zone and there are strong arguments that even this should be allowed.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @05:18PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @05:18PM (#403854)

          I tend to read the negative reviews and the positive reviews and try to figure out if the comments are even possible when I'm reading them.

          And how would you make that judgement if you have not ever used the product yourself? After all, you read these reviews before making the purchase in hopes of getting a sense about whether this is something you want to buy. Trolls add nothing but disinformation to that decision making process. In some cases the trolls are rather obvious so you can easily ignore them. On the other hand, there will be some who are rather more subtle in their trolling; those are the ones that will skew your perceptions of the product.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @06:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @06:17PM (#403882)

      Steam flags reviews with how many hours your account has in the game as of your posting of the review.

      I think it's possible to review things you don't own, but they'd clearly be marked as such. I've not fiddled with it lately but I think you can filter those reviews out when skimming through them.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 19 2016, @01:15AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 19 2016, @01:15AM (#403571) Homepage Journal

    a motivated group can cause you significant damage regardless of whether they've ever even done business with you.

    Yes, they can. And have done so for a very, very long time. Welcome to something slightly resembling capitalism in a nation with somewhat free speech.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @02:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @02:16AM (#403590)

      So after this very long time, has anyone thought of any improvements to the situation?

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:37PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday September 21 2016, @10:37PM (#404940) Journal

    I expect we're close to the point where product reviews will be closely moderated to weed out the hostile and uninformed crap that you often find.

    I think we're at a point where we have better options available.

    There's a lot of different kinds of spam of course. Some of them are actually attacks -- the automated "BUY ROLEX NOW" crapflood where you've got a bunch of bots spamming the same text to the same pages day after day...that's not even spam, that's an attack, and that should be blocked.

    But then you have the semi legitimate spam. If an actual human sits there and types out the words and hits post, any blocking of that should be extremely limited. Filter out profanity if you're a "family-friendly" site, but that's about it. Doesn't matter if it seems irrelevant, doesn't matter if it just says 'this app blows lulz'...it's a public forum, they've got a right to post there, and SOMEONE might actually find it useful. For example, when a company gets a ton of bad reviews due to some report on their labor practices. Many would say those reviews are useless and irrelevant because they say nothing about the product. But personally I'd like to see those reviews FIRST, because to me that's an extremely important factor when making a purchase. And even reviews that are utterly useless alone could provide some information in aggregate.

    The attack/DOS type spam we've mostly weeded out, the real problem now is this semi legitimate stuff. In this case, I think the Google Play store actually has a decent start at handling it. When I look at the reviews for an app, it checks my Google contacts, and if any of them have reviewed it those show up first. I've got an older brother who I don't talk to much anymore, but there have been a couple cases where I specifically downloaded an app because Google showed me that he had given it a good review. And I wasn't disappointed. The problem is that my list of Google contacts is pretty small, so for most apps there won't be any reviews promoted in that way. But all they need to do is build out this system into something more closely resembling a web of trust. I should be able to flag a review as helpful or garbage, and as soon as I do that the reviews I see will change so I see no reviews from that user, or no reviews that user has approved of, or more reviews that users who disapproved of that one have approved of, etc. Many retailers already have the "Is this review helpful?" question, it's just not always intelligent enough -- it could be gamed by a single group (some 4chan group or whoever) that makes crap reviews and also flags each others' as good. But if all those helpful flags are coming from the same group, I should be able to flag a single one as garbage and all of them will go away -- but only for me (and those who trust me). If someone else WANTS to read them, they're still free to do so. And I'm free to read them too, as they'll be right there at the bottom of the page.