Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

63 doctors, dentists sue Google for keeping reviews they say are unfair

82 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

82 Comments
Login to comment

Interesting. The pediatrician/ family clinic near my home has really negative reviews, based seemingly on the fact that it was also a covid vaccination center during the pandemic and that many people were turned away during that time. But in terms of being a pediatric clinic, they are great and went above and beyond when my infant daughter was sick and needed to be hospitalized at a larger institution - they arranged everything.

18 ( +22 / -4 )

On the one hand, they may be just killing the messenger instead of simply owning up to criticism.

But on the other hand, people (and competitors) often use negative reviews as a method of spite for personal reasons outside of any business practice, and there should be a better method to address this.

And it goes the other way too, with places making fake 5 star reviews for themselves.

So its always important to check any review (be it one star or five) to see if the reviewer has any other reviews, or this is just a one-off review account.

25 ( +25 / -0 )

Instead improving their practice and good service, they ask for review deletion.

https://qz.com/380817/a-japanese-court-has-ordered-google-to-take-down-negative-business-reviews

-4 ( +16 / -20 )

How to find a good professional in Japan if not by reviews?

8 ( +16 / -8 )

We have a great dentist. Five-minute walk. Visits usually cost less than ¥1,000. Do not take any new patients. Next door is our local hospital with very good doctors and healthcare staff.

-9 ( +11 / -20 )

I have lived in many countries around the world, but Japan ranks #1 when it comes to the incompetence of doctors and dentists. Maybe they should try to improve as opposed to trying to shut down bad reviews of their services online.

-11 ( +16 / -27 )

I am at fault - together with a small community from my local city we've created fake reviews about fictional castle ruins just to see the reaction. It has picked up, with hundreds of people liking and posting their own "reviews" of the place on Google Maps. It was a 3.8 starred place for three-four years. It has genuinely attracted people to an empty opening in the middle of a boring park, showing how useless Google Maps reviews can be.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

I was looking at mental health clinics in my area and none of them had positive reviews. Tough crowd to please, I guess.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

WRONG, and I hope the court will rule against them.

People should be able to voice and comment their concerns so others can make an educated decision.

If a doctor or a dentist feel it's unfair then they need to contact that person and work out their problems ,and NOT TRY SILENCE THEM, it's a two ways street the good shall be rewarded and the bad shall be called out.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

We have a great dentist. Five-minute walk. Visits usually cost less than ¥1,000. Do not take any new patients. Next door is our local hospital with very good doctors and healthcare staff.

Good for you wallace. Im sure such proximity is a great convenience, especially as we get older.

But on the other hand, people (and competitors) often use negative reviews as a method of spite for personal reasons outside of any business practice, and there should be a better method to address this. And it goes the other way too, with places making fake 5 star reviews for themselves.

Very good point.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I am at fault - together with a small community from my local city we've created fake reviews about fictional castle ruins just to see the reaction. 

You understand this is against the law, right? If someone is affected by the false reviews they may force google to give up information to identify you and sue.

WRONG, and I hope the court will rule against them.

People should be able to voice and comment their concerns so others can make an educated decision.

The article is not about making people unable to comment their concerns, it is about making people unable to lie and deceive others, there is no benefit gained by letting people falsely claim a doctor's office is no longer in business.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Other options are Don't allow comments or reviews on your page or CLOSE IT.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I wonder if this lawsuit really has any teeth.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

in the first place, the Japanese court is not fair....

Japanese courts knowing that its system is rotten were successful in removing negative reviews about courts from Google....

As the Japanese court works with Google to clean its image, the conflict of interest is obvious.

As Google is supported by the Japanese court, the winner becomes obvious...

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

...and yes, Japanese dentists are so expensive that, for anything more than 4-5 teeth, it is cheaper to just fly to an Eastern EU country, stay in a hotel for a week, get the best and most expensive monolithic zirconium bridges and fly back. The process is fully digital (scans and teeth construction) and so the quality stays extraordinarily good. If Japan for each tooth it cost about 10X the price (no joke)..

2 ( +8 / -6 )

...and yes, Japanese dentists are so expensive that, for anything more than 4-5 teeth, it is cheaper to just fly to an Eastern EU country, stay in a hotel for a week, get the best and most expensive monolithic zirconium bridges and fly back. The process is fully digital (scans and teeth construction) and so the quality stays extraordinarily good. If Japan for each tooth it cost about 10X the price (no joke)..

Or you can get a filling done for about 6000 yen.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

One big problem is the your competition ( and every one that they can round up) can post false negative reviews.

Just as you ( and every one that you can round up) can post false positive reviews.

And Google has no review of these reviews.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This entire culture of people being able to publicly rate the people they come in contact with needs an overhaul. Sometimes I think it's yet another attack on small businesses: a giant corporation can bathe in hateful reviews and nothing bad will happen to them, but a neighborhood shop or even an individual selling old stuff online will be destroyed by a few spiteful "Karens" who will blow small problems out of proportion and now have a platform to tell the entire world. Who benefits? The Amazons and Wal-Marts of the world who don't have to worry about such slander.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Or you can get a filling done for about 6000 yen.

IF you problem is solved with unsightly metallic fillings, that is... Most people try to avoid having all the metal detectors sounding the alarms in airports. It is impossible for me to comprehend why insurances don't support teeth coloured fillings and (well) teeth, while the costs are about the same as the metallic ones. No wonder they get bad Google reviews, a hard looks at the Japanese dentistry shows you they're easily 50 years behind the modern standards!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Or you can get a filling done for about 6000 yen.

IF you problem is solved with unsightly metallic fillings, that is... Most people try to avoid having all the metal detectors sounding the alarms in airports. It is impossible for me to comprehend why insurances don't support teeth coloured fillings and (well) teeth, while the costs are about the same as the metallic ones. No wonder they get bad Google reviews, a hard look at the Japanese dentistry shows you they're easily 50 years behind the modern standards!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Doctors, dentists sue Google for keeping reviews they say are unfair

A lot of these are prickly snowflakes with an over-inflated sense of self-worth.

Presented with evidence of empirically-vetted treatments and medicines widely used abroad they will default to staunch defense of pushing outdated treatments based superseded treatments. And get highly offended by pushback.

This applies to widely-prescribed and broadly safe drugs used abroad.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

IF you problem is solved with unsightly metallic fillings, that is...

How are you talking that all your teeth can be seen?

Most people try to avoid having all the metal detectors sounding the alarms in airports.

I have a filling, it's never set off any metal detectors.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I always use the search tab on google reviews to look for key words in other people's reviews and base my judgment on those comments rather than the amount of stars I see initially. Japanese reviews are always confusing to me, they would give 3 stars to an establishment that they would consider has good food, service, atmosphere, and コスパ but would take off two stars for little nitpicks like "there were too many people" or "other customers were rude". It's funny that a country that doesn't have a tipping system, and has affordable dining has so many people nit picking at the little things.

As for medical facilities, it is quite rare to find a 内科 or dentist with a good review in my area. It is one of those things where you just have to go see for yourself. Many of these places tend give you a sheet to fill in, have you wait for hours then get called up, have the doctor talk to you and check your heart, then it's off to go get your medicine in a separate building which takes another hour to receive. It is rare to find places that go above and beyond these standard procedures. If you have been going to the same place for years and the doctor is familiar with you, you may get better services or if you live away from the city where doctors aren't busy screening a million patients per day.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It is impossible for me to comprehend why insurances don't support teeth coloured fillings

Huh? I got teeth colored fillings using my national health insurance. What are you talking about?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

What law is this? It's a review about a fake landmark.

I am at fault - together with a small community from my local city we've created fake reviews about fictional castle ruins just to see the reaction. 

You understand this is against the law, right? If someone is affected by the false reviews they may force google to give up information to identify you and sue.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I got teeth colored fillings using my national health insurance. What are you talking about?

You get the rosin ones, that change colour within 3 years and cost nothing to produce. You DON'T get any ceramic (powder or monolyth ones. You also don't get veneers or actual teeth replacement unless they're metallic with the national health insurance. Do a quick check about the standards in EU and compare them with Japan.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

One problem with the anonymous reviews left on google is that you cannot contact the reviewer, often it is just a one-off comment or poor rating out of spite or someone disliking you, and the reviewer disapears after making the comment or rating. Google should improve the way ratings and reviews are managed.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Give better service and you probably get better reviews. Sure, some people may have other reasons than bad service, but when you have a good amount of bad reviews, there's probably good reason for that. If they want the bad reviews removed, all of the positive ones should also go and then start from scratch. There's one place I go to about once every two years. They do the very bare minimum and the staff and "professionals" there are rude and uncaring for the most part. I always review their service fairly and overall they have very few 5-star reviews. There's a pattern to their service and a true reason to the reviewers' displeasure.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Doctors need to have thicker skins. You can't please everyone all the time. Sometimes a doctor has to give bad news or needs to refuse a specific course of treatment for reasons that aren't known to the customer/patient. Other customers/patients know this.

I understand that Japan has a law which prevents saying anything negative, even if true, about other people which might harm their personal or business reputation. I think that's a crazy law, but it is on the books, so it should be enforced. Of course, that would mean 1-star reviews without any reason, which makes it harder to spot fake reviews. Still, that is google's problem, not the doctors, so I think they have a good legal case against the huge marketing company.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

You understand this is against the law, right? If someone is affected by the false reviews they may force google to give up information to identify you and sue.

Not if you give positive reviews! Who are you to tell me not to write "I really loved the place, highly recommended!" on Google Maps. That is not against any laws.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I am at fault - together with a small community from my local city we've created fake reviews about fictional castle ruins just to see the reaction. 

You understand this is against the law, right? If someone is affected by the false reviews they may force google to give up information to identify you and sue.

Cite the law you believe is being violated; otherwise it is just your opinion.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The reviews are pretty accurate in my Tokyo neighborhood. The local dermatologist is as rude and useless as his patients say. The family clinic GP is great. The large dental clinic overpriced, etc.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

14,000$ between 63 doctors. Lol. Imagine that kind of backlash in the US. Overall most clinics in Japan are amazing and staffed with wonderful care and considerate physicians. But I have had horor stories that in retrospect were due to cultural misunderstandings. In my opinion there needs to be better education of the public and physicians about the cultural differences when it comes to health care and how nationalities communicate about their health concerns. Domestic Japanese clients is out of my expertise they have other issues I'm sure. But with my limited language I feel better visiting a clinic in Japan than I ever did in the states.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Doctors, dentists sue Google for keeping reviews they say are unfair

or you could, you know......step up yo game?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

You get the rosin ones, that change colour within 3 years and cost nothing to produce.

Well you’re demonstrably wrong about that. All mine are still tooth coloured and much older than three years.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Cite the law you believe is being violated; otherwise it is just your opinion.

At this point it is unbelievable that anybody could believe it is legal to produce false information to deceive others on the internet for fun, there is zero difficulty in finding descriptions of precisely the case I wrote, it is not an opinion when it is even common sense by now.

For example this is a description from a legal site that gives this situation as an example.

https://itbengo-pro.com/columns/281/

or you could, you know......step up yo game?

How much would that help against people making false claims such as the ones in the article?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Or you can get a filling done for about 6000 yen

Not 6000 yen but 60,000 yen upwards...

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Wrote a bad review of mental clinic as they were tough and rude, ignoring all what patient said, feeling like a client...and many more people wrote the same and liked my review to say "thank you"...lost of time, money, and hurting more mental illness by such bad doctor.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Since when were professionals allowed to curate their reviews? Suck it up, buttercup!!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let reviewer and reviewed exchange.

Even for doctors it is possible to remain neutral about confidentiality.

I dislike reviews without any explanations and name of reviewer if it is possibly hurtful.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Virusrex

You understand this is against the law, right? If someone is affected by the false reviews they may force google to give up information to identify you and sue.

It might be illegal, but not in the broad way you suggest. If someone travels to Ebisen's fake castle ruins, they can't sue Ebisen for posting inaccurate information. Just like I can't sue you for leaving a 5-star restaurant review when the meals are objectively 3-star. Neither you nor Ebisen owe other internet users any obligation to provide accurate information. Whether people choose to make travel/restaurant plans based solely on what they read online is entirely up to them.

Where it becomes illegal is that it likely violates Google's terms of service, which theoretically gives Google the right to sue Ebisen for disrupting their business.

The link you provided doesn't address the situation here.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's pretty easy to detect unfair reviews. And if most of the other reviews are different you can decide.

Positive reviews can be unfair too.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It might be illegal, but not in the broad way you suggest. If someone travels to Ebisen's fake castle ruins, they can't sue Ebisen for posting inaccurate information. 

Of course they can, the reference I provided clearly says this is perfectly possible. What part of the article from a legal office can you demonstrate is wrong?

There is no comparison between leaving a subjective evaluation of something and writing a complete fiction to deceive others, the excuse of not having a responsibility to be precise in no way justifies willingly giving false information. What if someone wrote a business of someone in your family was a front for organized crime? and what if several people find that funny and do the same? would you justify that with the same reason, even if that makes the business fail or puts you against actual criminals?

It should be obvious this is not valid and there is no justification that can let people do it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I often use hygienist in japan, they are substantially better than those in US and Australia. EU dentist are terrible, no need for comparison. In England, they cleaned only single tooth and charging 800 pound. I had a fight with dentist.

in Australia, they try to clean under gum meat every so often and i always had problem. It was a horrible thing done just to get money. It costs over $1000. Since i move to japan, i have never had any problem. Just a simple hygienist cleaning once in 6 month was enough, costing less than 100 Japanese dollar (100yen is kind of a dollar).

Thank You Japanese Dentists.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Doctors and dentists in Japan mostly don’t want to treat foreigners. I was in the Hilton hotel where they have a clinic downstairs. I had a sudden very high bloodpressure but the doctor refused to see me. It took hours for the hotel to convince him. I could have been death.

my wife had a shoulder swelling. 4 first doctors refused to see a gajin( to much trouble).

overall doctors and dentist are pretty bad in Japan. The consequence of an education system based on theory mostly

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Five-star reviews are a waste of time anyway. Normal service is never written about, people only think in terms of fantastic on one side (their mate's place) or dire (they happened to have a poor experience. It's a shame that small businesses can be harmed so badly by this, but that's the nature of the beast. Perhaps a solution would be to cull the reviews every year or so, and then the comments would at least be current.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

robert maes

Doctors and dentists in Japan mostly don’t want to treat foreigners. I was in the Hilton hotel where they have a clinic downstairs. I had a sudden very high bloodpressure but the doctor refused to see me. It took hours for the hotel to convince him. I could have been death.

> my wife had a shoulder swelling. 4 first doctors refused to see a gajin( to much trouble).

> overall doctors and dentist are pretty bad in Japan. The consequence of an education system based on theory mostly

I have never been refused treatment by a doctor because I am a foreigner. I had cancer in 2019 and received excellent medical treatment at three different hospitals ending with a major operation and short hospital stay. Since 2020 I have been in post-cancer treatment and I am very happy with all the people who treat me.

Before that, I needed an emergency operation in the middle of the night for Appendicitis. I was taken to a major local hospital and had the operation immediately.

I have also received first-class dental care.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

"Japan has achieved one of the most successful health-care systems in the world.1 Under the nation's insurance scheme, Japanese citizens have taken for granted that anyone can choose any health-care facility and receive the most advanced medical care across the nation."

"One of the overwhelming pressures faced by physicians is the general obligation set by Japanese law stating that doctors are obliged to see patients whenever requested. This obligation is not just for an emergent situation, but also holds true for non-emergent situations. Furthermore, the obligation is imposed regardless of the doctor's expertise. The obligation was formulated by the Medical Practitioners Act (MPA) and issued in 1948. There are no equivalent medical laws that incorporate such obligation in other developed countries—eg, the UK and the USA."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30176-8/fulltext#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20overwhelming%20pressures,true%20for%20non%2Demergent%20situations.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

JohnToday  03:09 pm JST

I often use hygienist in japan, they are substantially better than those in US and Australia. EU dentist are terrible, no need for comparison. In England, they cleaned only single tooth and charging 800 pound. I had a fight with dentist.

in Australia, they try to clean under gum meat every so often and i always had problem. It was a horrible thing done just to get money. It costs over $1000. Since i move to japan, i have never had any problem. Just a simple hygienist cleaning once in 6 month was enough, costing less than 100 Japanese dollar (100yen is kind of a dollar).

Thank You Japanese Dentists.

Dentistry practice is pretty universal and any differences will be superficial. It's the same with medical practice.

It's amazing how our own personal expenses colour our perceptions and experiences of an entire industry.

I think it's more a case of where you go. There are not-so-good dentists and hygienists in Japan like anywhere else and excellent dentists in the US, UK etc. as well.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@virusrex

Of course they can, the reference I provided clearly says this is perfectly possible. What part of the article from a legal office can you demonstrate is wrong?

No. With respect, I think you've misunderstood the article. The situations it discusses are those that fall under fraudulent obstruction of business (ie. Art.233 of the Penal Code).

In Japan it's illegal to post fake reviews (or even genuine but slanderous reviews) and misinformation if you do so with the intent of harming a business. However, if you post misinformation about imaginary tourist attractions purely for entertainment (as Ebisen has done), it's not illegal per se (unless you do so with the intention of harming Google).

What if someone wrote a business of someone in your family was a front for organized crime? and what if several people find that funny and do the same?

This would be illegal because it's defamatory (and obstruction of business) but it's not an analogous situation. If I were to post about a fictitious business and accuse the fictitious owners of being involved in organized crime, that is not illegal. Nor would I be liable if someone read my story and wasted their time trying to visit this fictitious business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wallace - glad to hear you had such good experiences and care mate.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Registration with an NHS dentist in England and Wales is proving difficult as many are unwilling to take new patients.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I have never used reviews to find a doctor or dentist. When we moved here five years ago we asked the local people which dentist they used. On their advice, we followed that but he was an overcharging dentist. We did find another one who undercharges if anything.

There was a general hospital nearby and that turned out to be the right one for our needs.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Respect the rights of reviewers, let's call it adhering to the,

"Hippocritic oath".....

I can hear the groans....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Health Care Index by Country 2024

Japan is ranked third.

https://www.numbeo.com/health-care/rankings_by_country.jsp

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It doesn't say anything about reviews about fake places being illegal. There's vandalism like this on basically any crowdsourcing platform. It's unethical, but illegal?, I'm still not sure.

Of course they can, the reference I provided clearly says this is perfectly possible. What part of the article from a legal office can you demonstrate is wrong?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It doesn't say anything about reviews about fake places being illegal. There's vandalism like this on basically any crowdsourcing platform. It's unethical, but illegal?, I'm still not sure.

Again, the reference is there and it completely contradict the claim you made that there it would not be possible to sue, what is so difficult about people not being allowed to deceive others and causing them problems for fun? It is not like this is something that could only happen (and be punished) in reviews.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

wallaceToday  04:03 pm JST

Health Care Index by Country 2024

Japan is ranked third.

https://www.numbeo.com/health-care/rankings_by_country.jsp

The mystery for me is how do they have enough practitioners without having any immigrant doctors!?

And wait times seem reasonable.

I guess the declining population helps but that population is ageing. So are the number of patients remaining the same perhaps?

The only thing I didn't like about doctors in Japan was that there was no privacy - other patients were waiting and could see and hear my consultation! That and the doctors I had did not say much. :)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Honestly, I've had quite a lot of bad experiences with doctors in Japan, even had one who shouted at me because he didn't believe me when I explained my symptoms. I've used reviews in the past to get an idea of whether it's worth visiting a clinic or not, and it's been very helpful for me. I've also left reviews when I've had a good or poor experience for others like me who check the reviews first. I've found some great doctors here as well, but I would say 60 to 70% of my experience with doctors in Japan has been negative. I suppose you get what you pay for, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At this point it is unbelievable that anybody could believe it is legal to produce false information to deceive others on the internet for fun, there is zero difficulty in finding descriptions of precisely the case I wrote, it is not an opinion when it is even common sense by now.

Yet, you cannot cite any case law, or statute, meaning it is just your personal opinion based in hearsay.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

METATTOKYO

wallace

Health Care Index by Country 2024

> Japan is ranked third.

> https://www.numbeo.com/health-care/rankings_by_country.jsp

> The mystery for me is how do they have enough practitioners without having any immigrant doctors!?

There are some Chinese doctors. I believe there is a doctor shortage of about 20,000. Nurses too.

And wait times seem reasonable.

Usually by appointment.

I guess the declining population helps but that population is ageing. So are the number of patients remaining the same perhaps?

The care of the old is a major part of the healthcare.

The only thing I didn't like about doctors in Japan was that there was no privacy - other patients were waiting and could see and hear my consultation! That and the doctors I had did not say much.

I have not had that experience. Always in a private doctor's room in the hospital. I fully discuss my health with my doctors.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I'll believe it when I see a court decision about it in Japan.

Again, the reference is there and it completely contradict the claim you made that there it would not be possible to sue, what is so difficult about people not being allowed to deceive others and causing them problems for fun? It is not like this is something that could only happen (and be punished) in reviews.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The only thing I didn't like about doctors in Japan was that there was no privacy - other patients were waiting and could see and hear my consultation! That and the doctors I had did not say much.

I have not had that experience. Always in a private doctor's room in the hospital. I fully discuss my health with my doctors.

This was in the mid to late 1990's so not not sure if you were there then.

Maybe that was the old way of doing it. it was very weird to talk about my physical problems in ear shot of ten other people and then have the doctor examine me while other patients looked on.

This was in Tokyo.

On my second stay in Japan during the 2000's I didn't need to go to the doctor and I went to the density when on holiday at home.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A few people are asking about the Japanese laws.

Article 709. A person who violates intentionally or negligently the right of another is bound to make compensation for damages arising therefrom.

Article 710. A person who is liable in compensation for damages in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Article shall make compensation therefor even in respect of a non-pecuniary damage, irrespective of whether such injury was to the person, liberty or reputation of another or to his property rights.

Article 723. If a person has injured the reputation of another, the Court, may, on the application of the latter, make an order requiring the former to take suitable measures for the restoration of the latter's reputation either in lieu of or together with compensation for damages.

...

Suitable measures for the restoration of one's reputation set forth in article 723 include: (1) an apology in public court; (2) a letter of apology to the defamed person from the wrongdoer; (3) broadcasting of the withdrawal and an apology on television or radio; (4) a notice of apology or withdrawal of the statement in the place it occurred; (5) removal of the cause of the defamation; (6) publication of an apology and withdrawal in the newspaper; or (7) the right to refute the defamatory statement.

Under the CRIMINAL CODE,3 defamation is a punishable offense, but a distinction is made between ordinary defamation and defamation that involves the public interest.

Whether reviews of doctors is in the "public interest" would be the sticking point of these laws. In one Japanese case, a man let others know that his boss was having an affair with a coworker. This was 100% true. However, because that information injured the reputation of the 2nd man, he was found in court to have been wronged. The court's judgement was for the 2nd man having the affair, not for the man speaking the truth. Crazy, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet, you cannot cite any case law, or statute, meaning it is just your personal opinion based in hearsay.

The reference from a legal firm is there, pretending not being able to see it only proves you now understand your claim was wrong and this is no personal opinion, but since you can't do anything to disprove the reference your only option is to pretend not being able to see it.

I'll believe it when I see a court decision about it in Japan.

Nameless people on the internet don't believe something happens, professional lawyers openly claim it is perfectly possible, It should be clear who is more likely to be right here.

Whether reviews of doctors is in the "public interest" would be the sticking point of these laws

At least for the examples of the article there would be no public interest involved, openly lying and claiming the doctor is no longer in business obviously is meant to hurt the business without benefiting anybody.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If you say so. Professional lawyers claim a lot of things; They typically get paid whether you win or lose a case. I'll wait to see a court decision.

Nameless people on the internet don't believe something happens, professional lawyers openly claim it is perfectly possible, It should be clear who is more likely to be right here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It is an opinion of a patient!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let those dentists hold that L. You better be very nice to your customers.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

At this point it is unbelievable that anybody could believe it is legal to produce false information to deceive others on the internet for fun, there is zero difficulty in finding descriptions of precisely the case I wrote, it is not an opinion when it is even common sense by now.

For example this is a description from a legal site that gives this situation as an example.

So you can't cite any law or court precedent. Just your opinion.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If you say so.

Again, if the professionals that deal with the problem say so.

It should be obvious that someone with professionals qualifications is a much better source of information about the subject than anonymous people in the internet that don't offer any argument or evidence, just saying that they must be right and the lawyers must be wrong.

So you can't cite any law or court precedent. Just your opinion.

The reference from a legal firm is there, pretending not being able to see it only proves you now understand your claim was wrong and this is no personal opinion, but since you can't do anything to disprove the reference your only option is to pretend not being able to see it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No. With respect, I think you've misunderstood the article.

You can bank on that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can bank on that.

Since it is easy to imagine how people can be damaged (not only google but travel companies, people spending money to visit the site, etc.) the possibility of a lawsuit is still perfectly valid.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If you want to understand more about crowdsourced map vandalism, there's plenty of information online, e.g. https://www.geographyrealm.com/efforts-to-combat-map-vandalism-in-openstreetmap-data/. It happens a lot, but I've never heard of someone being arrested or sued for making fake edits (just banned). I'm not saying you're wrong, but the link you shared doesn't prove anything.

Again, if the professionals that deal with the problem say so.

It should be obvious that someone with professionals qualifications is a much better source of information about the subject than anonymous people in the internet that don't offer any argument or evidence, just saying that they must be right and the lawyers must be wrong.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The reference from a legal firm is there, pretending not being able to see it only proves you now understand your claim was wrong and this is no personal opinion, but since you can't do anything to disprove the reference your only option is to pretend not being able to see it.

What a world it would be if a "reference from a legal firm" cemented itself as the law in a society!!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It happens a lot, but I've never heard of someone being arrested or sued for making fake edits (just banned).

Arguing from ignorance without proving there is absence of that (likely because you are not interested in disproving yourself) does nothing to argue against a valid reference from someone that deals in the field and that says this is perfectly possible.

What a world it would be if a "reference from a legal firm" cemented itself as the law in a society!!

that is not why it is important, it is simply a much more reliable source of information than nameless people claiming the lawyers are wrong without even trying to argue how this is the case.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That's not how law (or science) works. We don't need to prove the absence of something. The one making the accusation/claim has to provide the proof of it. Arguing that "an expert says so" isn't proof, as others also noted already.

Arguing from ignorance without proving there is absence of that (likely because you are not interested in disproving yourself) does nothing to argue against a valid reference from someone that deals in the field and that says this is perfectly possible.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That's not how law (or science) works. We don't need to prove the absence of something

You are when you are trying to disprove what someone that gives a professional opinion about it. Just saying "I don't know, so he must be wrong because if not I would know" is obviously not enough an argument to prove your point, it just means you are arguing from ignorance.

Arguing that "an expert says so" isn't proof, as others also noted already.

But it is still a much better argument than nameless people saying the opposite. Unless you want to make an appeal to your own authority. Something that is obviously not possible from an anonymous account.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

There's a difference between trying to disprove someone, and not believing them based on their word alone (when they provide no supporting evidence). I don't care to disprove anything. I just wanted to learn more, but ended up not learning anything.

> You are when you are trying to disprove what someone that gives a professional opinion about it. Just saying "I don't know, so he must be wrong because if not I would know" is obviously not enough an argument to prove your point, it just means you are arguing from ignorance.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Like so much on the internet, reviews have devolved into high noise low value matter br trusted, and even though some of it is high value, it's hard to know which of it is real. AI is already make the situation worse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unlike N. America, do you notice doctors never post their degrees on their walls.

There are universities that are famous for producing great doctors and there are others that are famous for taking on individuals who come from a family of doctors and who cannot get into the more famous universities and may not have the same quality or ability from the more well-known universities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's a difference between trying to disprove someone, and not believing them based on their word alone

When an expert in a field says something is possible then not believing that expert without providing any evidence that demonstrate he is wrong is what is not valid, the point is not that you don't try to disprove what an authority on the topic is saying, is that you expect you personal opinion based on not being involved in the field to be treated as an argument that could disprove that expert. In this case a legal firm is a much better source of information than nameless people on the internet, by far.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No, it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to not believe an expert that provides no evidence for their claim. In fact , it should be the default response. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1365712720927622

When an expert in a field says something is possible then not believing that expert without providing any evidence that demonstrate he is wrong is what is not valid,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites