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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't "detain" (kidnap) and "remove" (mass deport) them?
I don't like the whole system of masked guys without badgets picking up kids from the street and putting them in camps to be deported. Do you get my sentiment?
Especially since the country doing it has no, literally no moral reason to claim the land. USA is a settler colonialist project.
They even tried deporting native americans! This whole shit has to stop.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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...
"inappropriately"
Surely political opinions of political bodies are entirely appropriate.
[flagged]
[flagged]
https://xkcd.com/1357/
"Across Europe I fear free speech is in retreat"
These types of comments have been getting more frequent, or more irritating. Your conclusion is ridiculous and you should be ashamed.
[flagged]
They've disabled reviews on all kinds of law enforcement locations for some time.
Examples of places that may have long-term restrictions include police stations, prisons, oceans, seas, and schools.
https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/1303613...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most incarceration centers definitely fit this.
[1] https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/1303613...
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.
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.
They need to be abolished, not reformed.
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.
Fair analysis. But we should lose sight of the goal to end this horror.
Kind of like "end slavery" vs "make living conditions for slaves better".
Then what would be your solution to detainees pending removal?
Don't "detain" (kidnap) and "remove" (mass deport) them?
I don't like the whole system of masked guys without badgets picking up kids from the street and putting them in camps to be deported. Do you get my sentiment?
Especially since the country doing it has no, literally no moral reason to claim the land. USA is a settler colonialist project.
They even tried deporting native americans! This whole shit has to stop.
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.
Why would they allow reviews of ICE Dentention Centers anyways? Who gives a 5 star review to a prison?
Also it censors schools reviews.
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.
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.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-...
[dead]