
TripAdvisor removed rape and injury warnings at Mexico resorts, tourists say - ilamont
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/01/tripadvisor-removed-warnings-rapes-and-injuries-mexico-resorts-tourists-say/820094001/
======
generj
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.

~~~
AJ007
If Google penalized or delisted TripAdvisor, they would go out of business.

~~~
tacomonstrous
Would be very hard for them to do that without inviting serious antitrust
scrutiny.

~~~
i_am_nomad
How, though? It doesn’t seem like they compete with TripAdvisor. Their “Google
Reviews” product isn’t in the same class at all.

~~~
lepht
Google Trips seems pretty close to me:
[https://get.google.com/trips/](https://get.google.com/trips/)

~~~
notahacker
And their standard search/mapping product returns lists of hotels/attractions
on a map with star ratings, unique and syndicated reviews, photos, opening
times and availability & price with booking link.

------
jostmey
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

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

------
imglorp
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.

~~~
user5994461
Also, hotels have an interest in putting bad reviews and closing their
competitors.

~~~
hatmatrix
But wouldn't an effective bad review be a seemingly real testimony that you
were raped at their establishment?

------
11thEarlOfMar
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?

~~~
DrScump

      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.

------
dreamcompiler
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.

~~~
jimmywanger
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.

~~~
dreamcompiler
I used to go to Juarez regularly before it became a war zone. Then the common
wisdom became "stay in the touristy areas." But over the past ten years, there
have been several well-covered attacks in tourist towns on both coasts. I'm
not saying you can't still have a good time, but there are just no low-risk
places in Mexico any more, and the cops are not likely to be of much help
unless your interests align with those of the drug cartels.

------
cardiffspaceman
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.

------
everybodyknows
From the article:

'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
To me is sounds like somebody wants to put out the competition.

