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]