Rendered at 06:11:49 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
elmer2 15 hours ago [-]
When specific movies were poorly reviewed on Rotten Tomatoes, apparently because they thought they were not genuine,the company pulled the reviews.
This is no different. I seriously doubt most of them are genuine and instead a way to post political commentary inappropriately.
robtherobber 15 hours ago [-]
Not disputing this possibility. But we should also keep in mind that the company itself has admitted in the past it has censored certain speech (for right or wrong reasons) on its platforms [0] and that it wasn't the first or the only time when it has done that. [1][2]
It has censored content for a variety of reasons, including to comply with government requests (which may very well be the case here, I don't see why it's not possible) [3]. In fact, the company has backtracked a number of it previous promises, when it positioned itself as a bastion for accurate information. [4]
I'm not trying to portray it as some kind of Big Tobacco monster, but it would be naive to believe that it's here for the benefit of anyone other than the shareholders.
Google has routinely removed respectful, factual, but low-rated reviews I've left for restaurants and other places just because someone complained. They have also cleaned up or disabled reviews for many public institutions in some (or all?) countries. Then there are cases like Germany, where even a 3-star review may be automatically removed because it's considered potentially defamatory.
I understand that ICE is a very contentious topic but this seems to happen quite often in other situations as well. It's made me value Google Maps reviews much less.
dantillberg 14 hours ago [-]
I left a [positive/glowing] google maps review for my child's preschool, only to discover later the review was never made publicly visible. I have no idea why, and there's of course no appeal process. The experience leaves a very bitter taste.
14 hours ago [-]
kotaKat 14 hours ago [-]
Same - I had an extremely horrid experience at a local dealership's service department, and that one only appears when I'm signed in and looking at it, but doesn't appear at all signed out, yet the rest of my reviews are A-OK.
A little worrying.
tzs 12 hours ago [-]
I'm surprised reviews were enabled for those locations.
From their explanation of posting restrictions [1] that was linked in another comment:
> Posting on a particular place may be turned off if its category or geographic area has experienced a continuous pattern of low value or off-topic posts. Contributions are considered low value when they don’t typically play a large part in helping users decide whether to visit the place.
People being detained generally aren't asked by ICE which detention center they want to be put in, and people visiting a detention center generally are doing so to see a client or relative, so ICE detention centers fit this (as do most other incarceration facilities).
Later they list characteristics of places they may restrict, and one is:
> Generally unvisitable or have limited public access. These are places where people typically don’t have a choice about which location to go to, that aren’t open to the public, or where access to the place may be limited to people who are stationed or assigned there.
My question is, are they actually deporting people efficiently? Because if they are accumulating people in these facilities, it could become dangerous. They have been dehumanizing them for months.
If there are constraints for food supplies, staff are not going to risk their jobs to keep prisoners fed.
There needs to be a law for video audits every X weeks. Or there is a real risk of starvation in some places. Some of them are for profit and the intense racial hatred is no joke.
NewJazz 14 hours ago [-]
They want to build more camps... You can conclude from that they don't really have a plan for releasing these people from custody. Remember their first idea was to shove all these folks in CECOT, which has released maybe single digit numbers of prisoners since it was opened.
one33seven 14 hours ago [-]
They need to be abolished, not reformed.
ilaksh 14 hours ago [-]
Yes but it seems more feasible to try to avoid people starving in there in the medium term. Abolishing them is a good goal to pursue in addition. It's just more difficult.
polski-g 14 hours ago [-]
Then what would be your solution to detainees pending removal?
danaris 13 hours ago [-]
First of all, the answer is "no, they're absolutely not".
However, the reason for that is that they don't want to. They want to torture these people for the sin of being brown in America.
Second of all, it absolutely does not matter whether they are efficiently carrying out their fascist work. The official, stated purpose of ICE, as it currently stands, is cruel, unnecessary, and almost certainly in violation of international law.
daft_pink 11 hours ago [-]
Why would they allow reviews of ICE Dentention Centers anyways? Who gives a 5 star review to a prison?
dlahoda 14 hours ago [-]
Also it censors schools reviews.
morkalork 14 hours ago [-]
This is not new. Way back in the day, you could see and add reviews to Guantanamo Bay on google maps. They were absolutely hilarious since most were trolly reviews of the music (which detainees were forced to endure) and the food (force fed to those on hunger strikes). Suffice to say, that did not last very long.
felooboolooomba 14 hours ago [-]
We've seen before how companies fall in line:
Of the 4,700 newspapers published in Germany when the Nazis took power in 1933, no more that 1,100 remained. Approximately half were still in the hands of private or institutional owners, but these newspapers operated in strict compliance with government press laws and published material only in accordance with directives issued by the Ministry of Propaganda.
This is no different. I seriously doubt most of them are genuine and instead a way to post political commentary inappropriately.
It has censored content for a variety of reasons, including to comply with government requests (which may very well be the case here, I don't see why it's not possible) [3]. In fact, the company has backtracked a number of it previous promises, when it positioned itself as a bastion for accurate information. [4]
I'm not trying to portray it as some kind of Big Tobacco monster, but it would be naive to believe that it's here for the benefit of anyone other than the shareholders.
[0] https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/google-admi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
[2] https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-...
[3] https://www.manchesterdigital.com/post/manchester-digital/go...
[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/26/how-google-abandoned-facts-f...
Surely political opinions of political bodies are entirely appropriate.
Examples of places that may have long-term restrictions include police stations, prisons, oceans, seas, and schools.
https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/1303613...
I understand that ICE is a very contentious topic but this seems to happen quite often in other situations as well. It's made me value Google Maps reviews much less.
A little worrying.
From their explanation of posting restrictions [1] that was linked in another comment:
> Posting on a particular place may be turned off if its category or geographic area has experienced a continuous pattern of low value or off-topic posts. Contributions are considered low value when they don’t typically play a large part in helping users decide whether to visit the place.
People being detained generally aren't asked by ICE which detention center they want to be put in, and people visiting a detention center generally are doing so to see a client or relative, so ICE detention centers fit this (as do most other incarceration facilities).
Later they list characteristics of places they may restrict, and one is:
> Generally unvisitable or have limited public access. These are places where people typically don’t have a choice about which location to go to, that aren’t open to the public, or where access to the place may be limited to people who are stationed or assigned there.
Most incarceration centers definitely fit this.
[1] https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/1303613...
If there are constraints for food supplies, staff are not going to risk their jobs to keep prisoners fed.
There needs to be a law for video audits every X weeks. Or there is a real risk of starvation in some places. Some of them are for profit and the intense racial hatred is no joke.
However, the reason for that is that they don't want to. They want to torture these people for the sin of being brown in America.
Second of all, it absolutely does not matter whether they are efficiently carrying out their fascist work. The official, stated purpose of ICE, as it currently stands, is cruel, unnecessary, and almost certainly in violation of international law.
Of the 4,700 newspapers published in Germany when the Nazis took power in 1933, no more that 1,100 remained. Approximately half were still in the hands of private or institutional owners, but these newspapers operated in strict compliance with government press laws and published material only in accordance with directives issued by the Ministry of Propaganda.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-...