This is horrifying behavior. I'm certainly not going to use TripAdvisor again.
The most depressing part of this story is the sheer number of comments alleging sexual abuse TripAdvisor deleted. I was expecting this article to slim with about two to three allegations. The fact that USA Today could find so many people to corroborate this sort of behavior shows that TripAdvisor is making a deliberate choice to sexually and physically endanger their customers.
I don't know the details of the story, but couldn't it be just a glitch in their automatic filtering system? Happened to all of us at some point, you try to fix one thing, but accidentally screw up something else in the process.
TripAdvisor is probably paid money to promote businesses. I suspect that these warnings were automatically deleted by their servers and that TripAdvisor employees did not make a deliberate decision to endanger people. Still, this is terrible
The problem is that people want everything for free. No one wants to pay for the news. No one wants to pay for reviews. Lots of people download stuff for free. Well, if you are not paying for it, you are not the consumer. You are the one being consumed. Maybe some savvy entrepreneurs can build a business model off of providing genuine reviews
Edit: Maybe some clever person could create a decentralized, distributed review system, like bitcoin, but for online reviews
It doesn't matter who's paying or not. If you lead people to believe it's an egalitarian review site - and burying caveats in some 20,000 word ToS contract doesn't count - then stealth-editing out bad information is deceptive, and deception is a form of fraud.
The problem is not that people want everything for free. People were perfectly happy buying tourist guidebooks when they went somewhere and choosing accommodations or activities based on collected information from backpackers, tour guides etc. As in many other contexts, companies like TripAdvisor blew a hole in that market by offering what appeared to be free, instant, and open-source trip-sharing information, while quietly monetizing it in the background and using their monetization strategy to wreck any genuine open source competition. It's a business model we've seen deployed over and over again, and it's turning out to be a rather shitty one.
TA has a glaring conflict of interest here. They can't represent the interests of both the travel businesses and the travelers at the same time: the commission will win every time.
There is a difference between alleging poor service or quality of accommodation, and, alleging a criminal act committed on the premises or by hotel staff. Trip Adviser likely must take down these posts because they allege criminal acts that in many cases are not proven in a court and therefore, Trip Adviser can be sued for libel by the hotel. If the crime is reported and charges are subsequently proven and the case is a matter of public record, then I'd say Trip Adviser is obligated to report that fact in some way. But that can take a long time, and I'd guess some guests don't report the crime to the local police at all.
It's a terrible situation not just that someone is victimized, but that they cannot warn others and spare them. What is the solution? How can victims ensure that future guests are warned?
allege criminal acts that in many cases are not proven in a court
... which the media does all the time, often even before/without formal criminal charges being filed.
I think they would be justified in removing such reviews with allegations uncorroborated by supporting police reports. But if there is an open criminal complaint or indictment, review removals about such a case looks improper.
The story where someone spent a week getting their crime reported only to have the local police chief who was trying to help them murdered within weeks takes the cake. And the hotel refuses to help.
This is a horrible situation and TA probably deserves a class-action lawsuit. That said, Mexico has become a dumpster fire and the old days of "just stay in the tourist areas and you'll be safe" are long over. I'd sooner vacation in North Korea than Mexico.
I think most of Mexico is ok, however I speak a bit of Spanish and keep a low profile (not flashing wealth, not showing off my new smartphone).
Mexico is inexpensive and the weather is nice. I don't know what you mean by "dumpster fire". You gotta steer clear of the hot spots (such as Juarez) and just not get involved. Most people are super nice.
> That said, Mexico has become a dumpster fire and the old days of "just stay in the tourist areas and you'll be safe" are long over.
I enjoyed my time in Mexico earlier this year. Mexico City was wonderful, everywhere I went in the downtown core felt safe, no different than Chicago or NYC. There were wonderful plazas, street musicians playing, and great food everywhere. Granted the cops every other block helped add to the feeling of safety.
Parts of other cities felt sketchy, but then again parts of every city feel sketchy. (With a few exceptions, I've walked around Edinburgh randomly and everyplace I went was wonderful.)
The article has several spots where TripAdvisor is said to have deleted/not published a comment because they ruled it, "hearsay".
I would like someone to comment on
a) Who says TripAdvisor can tar a post with that brush anyway?
b) Does this word mean what they think it means?
Let's say, I went to a restaurant. I found huge nails in my salad. I talked to the maitre'd and he says, "there are no nails in this salad"
It seems to me that the above account, according to how TripAdvisor seems to behave, would be labeled hearsay and rejected as a whole, because I attribute words to the maitre'd, who of course is not me.
To me the account should be regarded as a first person account.
Also to me, regardless of whether it meets the technical definition of hearsay, it is valuable if someone says, "My wife found nails in her salad." or "My wife said she found nails in her salad." If I wrote, "My wife overheard a customer telling the maitre'd that there were nails in his salad" would be over the line but if that was only an embellishment of a post you'd want to include it.
'The company isn’t the same as a travel agency with experts personally advising and selling trips, he said. Travel agents have a legal duty to disclose information about travel destinations or resorts when they know about specific risks. If they don’t and travelers get injured, the travel agent can be held liable for “failure to warn.”'
So one of TripAdvisor's competitive value-adds for advertisers is its ability to shield them from accountability for the horrific crimes occurring at their resorts.
[+] [-] generj|8 years ago|reply
The most depressing part of this story is the sheer number of comments alleging sexual abuse TripAdvisor deleted. I was expecting this article to slim with about two to three allegations. The fact that USA Today could find so many people to corroborate this sort of behavior shows that TripAdvisor is making a deliberate choice to sexually and physically endanger their customers.
[+] [-] AJ007|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivanhoe|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jostmey|8 years ago|reply
The problem is that people want everything for free. No one wants to pay for the news. No one wants to pay for reviews. Lots of people download stuff for free. Well, if you are not paying for it, you are not the consumer. You are the one being consumed. Maybe some savvy entrepreneurs can build a business model off of providing genuine reviews
Edit: Maybe some clever person could create a decentralized, distributed review system, like bitcoin, but for online reviews
[+] [-] anigbrowl|8 years ago|reply
The problem is not that people want everything for free. People were perfectly happy buying tourist guidebooks when they went somewhere and choosing accommodations or activities based on collected information from backpackers, tour guides etc. As in many other contexts, companies like TripAdvisor blew a hole in that market by offering what appeared to be free, instant, and open-source trip-sharing information, while quietly monetizing it in the background and using their monetization strategy to wreck any genuine open source competition. It's a business model we've seen deployed over and over again, and it's turning out to be a rather shitty one.
[+] [-] user5994461|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] imglorp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user5994461|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goialoq|8 years ago|reply
Every sales operation has the same dilemma -- serve customers or fleece them?
[+] [-] microcolonel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2K17|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|8 years ago|reply
It's a terrible situation not just that someone is victimized, but that they cannot warn others and spare them. What is the solution? How can victims ensure that future guests are warned?
[+] [-] DrScump|8 years ago|reply
I think they would be justified in removing such reviews with allegations uncorroborated by supporting police reports. But if there is an open criminal complaint or indictment, review removals about such a case looks improper.
[+] [-] Malician|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamcompiler|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimmywanger|8 years ago|reply
Mexico is inexpensive and the weather is nice. I don't know what you mean by "dumpster fire". You gotta steer clear of the hot spots (such as Juarez) and just not get involved. Most people are super nice.
[+] [-] com2kid|8 years ago|reply
I enjoyed my time in Mexico earlier this year. Mexico City was wonderful, everywhere I went in the downtown core felt safe, no different than Chicago or NYC. There were wonderful plazas, street musicians playing, and great food everywhere. Granted the cops every other block helped add to the feeling of safety.
Parts of other cities felt sketchy, but then again parts of every city feel sketchy. (With a few exceptions, I've walked around Edinburgh randomly and everyplace I went was wonderful.)
[+] [-] cardiffspaceman|8 years ago|reply
I would like someone to comment on
a) Who says TripAdvisor can tar a post with that brush anyway?
b) Does this word mean what they think it means?
Let's say, I went to a restaurant. I found huge nails in my salad. I talked to the maitre'd and he says, "there are no nails in this salad"
It seems to me that the above account, according to how TripAdvisor seems to behave, would be labeled hearsay and rejected as a whole, because I attribute words to the maitre'd, who of course is not me.
To me the account should be regarded as a first person account.
Also to me, regardless of whether it meets the technical definition of hearsay, it is valuable if someone says, "My wife found nails in her salad." or "My wife said she found nails in her salad." If I wrote, "My wife overheard a customer telling the maitre'd that there were nails in his salad" would be over the line but if that was only an embellishment of a post you'd want to include it.
[+] [-] everybodyknows|8 years ago|reply
'The company isn’t the same as a travel agency with experts personally advising and selling trips, he said. Travel agents have a legal duty to disclose information about travel destinations or resorts when they know about specific risks. If they don’t and travelers get injured, the travel agent can be held liable for “failure to warn.”'
So one of TripAdvisor's competitive value-adds for advertisers is its ability to shield them from accountability for the horrific crimes occurring at their resorts.
[+] [-] jcslzr|8 years ago|reply