Shared publicly  - 
Power to the people: Our protest for Google Glass education worked

Last month my friend +Katy Kasmai visited a restaurant in NYC. While there, she was asked to remove her Glass over alleged privacy concerns from other patrons. Katy asked if the restaurant restricted smartphone usage, they did not. Here's her original post:

This is where the problem begins. Many of you know that from time to time +Google Glass gets bad publicity - mainly because of a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on what the technology can actually do. This type of fear, uncertainty, and doubt isn't new and was around decade ago when the first camera phones started to become popular. Places around the world banned them and restricted their access. Fast forward a few years later and the vast majority of establishments allow camera phone usage. Why? Besides everyone now has them, the world had adapted.

With Glass, the world hasn't had a chance to let the technology soak in, let alone have a good grasp on how the technology works and what it can do. Because of this, we see scenarios like the one I described above that happened to my friend Katy.

Ultimately, I believe every good Google Glass Explorer wants the same thing. They want the public to understand what Glass can do. Sadly, we've had to rely on the media to spread the news and we all know how biased the media is, pushing their own agendas.

Katy, myself, and many other Glass Explorers took matters into our own hands and protested the situation at hand. We didn't take to the streets of NYC and stand outside of this restaurant with signs like many protesters have done for hundreds of years to convey their message. We used a more modern method.

We took to Google Maps reviews and gave Feast of NYC a 1 star review and explained why (some more harsh than others, including myself). Our 1 star reviews let the public know why we were boycotting this restaurant and why we thought they were in the wrong. Once again, something that protesters have done time and time again.

And do you know what? Our protest was heard and it worked!

Feast of NYC noticed that their ratings had dropped and an East Village NYC blog ( wrote about the ordeal, raising awareness to our Google Glass education plight. The end result - today on Twitter, Katy was in contact with Feast. They stated on Twitter that they're interested to learn more about Google Glass. Katy will be stopping by Feast in the near future of give them a demo and explain to them what Google Glass is, how it works, and most importantly what it can do.

With our mission accomplished, I have removed my negative review and I encourage other Glass Explorers to do the same. Our voice was heard and the restaurant is going to get educated on Glass instead of blindly banning Glass.

No matter the end result, this is a win in my book.
Carolyn Capern's profile photoLisa Borel's profile photoGaggasuro's profile photoLORD CHOSA MORDECAI VI's profile photo
wow! amazing story!!! with a happy ending!
That's amazing. At least they took it with an open mind and hey this might even mean more business for them. Nice one +Derek Ross
"Again I can understand her leaving the one-star based on her experience, but 12 others with no experience on who we are or what we do is unfair."

Having an opinion without preconceived knowledge of something? Sure does sound familiar, doesn't it...
Well this was inspiring :|  Not often do I see protests actually work. 
Also, the comments on the blogger article are truly horrific. That many people are okay living in ignorance?
There have been some awfully rude things said in the opposite camp.

Peaceful methods are victim of a lack of education and fear. 
Great work! There is a need to make the ill informed informed about what Google Glass can do and if it takes a little more effort to help these people understand so be it. Kudos to you +Derek Ross
What is the ignorance people keep talking about?
+Tony Bonavera - Assumption that wearing Glass seems to be the only way people can be recorded without their knowledge. And that is the only thing Glass does.
Digital Blackmail/Terrorism at its finest.
Sounds to me y'all trying to force people to accept something that they don't or even won't accept. People aren't feeling google glass except for the kind of people in this thread. The bad publicity is google fault for not actually knowing what it's for. 
Other way around. Glass users are being forced to not use their devices or go where they want to because of misguided fears and misconceptions
+Mark Lastiwka I really doubt people assume Glass is the only way they can be recorded without their knowledge.
+James Sullins - they seem to be ignoring everything else, including phones.

In general, if someone really wants to record you without your knowledge, there are a ton of better cheaper ways. 
+James Sullins that's really what it boils down to. Hating on Glass is easy because it's easily seen. A hidden soy camera isn't hated on because you can't see it.
Here's the problem with those saying you've never been there so you can't leave feedback: I'm not rating the food, which I can add as a comment, I'm saving another eager, unknowing explorer from having to compromise, or even the embarrassment of being asked to leave. Why go where you aren't wanted? This is what reviews are for. I've seen places discriminate on race get ripped apart on principle and experience, and rightfully so, this way others can not patron their establishment. I have a very close light skinned friend who liked to occasionally go to a certain club when he was in town, another close friend who happens to be dark skinned, was made to feel uncomfortable there, he chose to not go there again based on another's experience, not that he ever had an issue, but knowing if the owner and patrons knew his heritage, he would have a similar experience, and chose to not support them again.
It's a private establishment. And that's nothing comparable to being asked to leave cause your black, Asian, Arab or whatever. You can be refused service for not having a fancy suit, wearing open toe sandals, having a camcorder or just being loud on your phone. 
I'm fairly certain the "ant Google Glass" campaign is actually a fairly well funded campaign started by Googles' competitors (most likely Microsoft or FaceBook). Too many comments on sites use exactly the same expressions and language.  I think the technology, though in its infancy is worrying them.

I'd have one right now, but I think that the cost/benefit ratio (for me) is not quite there yet. 
Power to the people. I feel like we need a NBC more you know after school special.
+Doug McMillan ummmm no. It's regular people looking at this thinking what's the point, I'll look dumb with them on, it's designed poorly, and most importantly no one gets the point (I know I said that already) and that's google's fault for not understanding consumers at all. this isn't the 80's or 90's anymore and tech as of now needs to be fashionable. Google Glass is not
I have had a ton of regular folks approach me +Sean Sanders excited about it not saying it looks dumb or what the point was. Not sure what real world data your theory is based on.
"Mainstream" fashion of today is open for persons "yikes" is another's form of expression.
+michael interbartolo its cool tech but at the end of the day it looks stupid. I'm sorry but that's the public opinion and if it wasn't the public opinion then google wouldn't put out that myths of google glass a few months back. People look at it and want to try them on out of curiousity buts that's it. This ain't gonna be a mainstream product at all because have phones that does what it needs to do just fine. 
+Sean Sanders honestly...I'm just not that concerned with looks. I'd rather use something that's cool, helpful, and innovative.

If you don't like the way it looks, that's fine. That's your opinion ;)
+Derek Ross that's cool. But most people are. It's human nature now & it's something that not even google can fix. Technology needs to be a solution to a problem. Google glass doesn't look like it can fix any problems being a consumer product. Maybe for law officials, medical dr's, or even construction workers. 
Fact is businesses have the right to ask you not to do something and refuse service if they don't. #GoogleGlass  doesn't mean you get to be a jerk. That goes for your friend +Katy Kasmai too.
When all else fails resort to name calling
+Melissa E. Correct. They do have that right. I just would like them to understand why they are exercising that right. 
+Derek Ross I really hate to say this but y'all come off as a bunch of whiny self entitled nerds that no one will take serious. When regular people see & read this they will say "that's why they called glassholes". My opinion, y'all going about this the wrong way. And google needs to try to educate the consumer space better by telling them the benefits of google glass and right now they haven't done that in the last 2 years. And if they can't do it then maybe google glass is just a flawed project that just wasn't meant to be .
So a bunch of people who hadn't eaten at an establishment rated it badly because of one persons experience and brought down the rating enough to demand attention. Hmmmm. 
This is how it happens. This is how you change the minds of closed minded, bigoted haters. Good work.
I probably would have just taken them off and respected the establishments rules rather than go on a hate spree to ruin a business's reputation.

But hey, that's just me. 
+Joshua Allan-Sloper That's not how you effect positive change. They properly reviewed a restaurant with poor service. That's how it works. 
"Whiny self entitled nerd" Sweet, I have to get a pair now!
EVERYONE reads Google map reviews ;-)
The people have a voice after all!
You all were bullies, pure and simple. Self-entitled bullies at that. You should be ashamed to use the review tactic as a means of, as +Aaron Wood so ably put it.... Digital blackmail.
I think that what you did is disappointing, hurtful for no good reason, and that Google needs to look at your actions as what Glass Explorers should not be doing.

Reviews are for those who have personally visited the establishment. You did not visit the establishment. Take all of your mean-spirited reviews down. Your actions are those of cyber bullies. Not a protest, but a gang of cyber thugs. And you should all know better. This isn't education. It's bullying.
+James Barraford Right, because its wrong to use your power and influence to force someone to do what you want. Like the customers who complained about Glass in the first place forcing the restaurant owner to have to ask Glass users to remove the devices. 

Bullying is wrong, in every form and to dismiss either one is just as bad as the bullying itself.
+David Kutcher mean spirited? Aren't you ascribing motive where it doesn't exist? Don't you think that's rude, obnoxious, and presumptive of you? This was done out of a positive desire to educate a business that was acting in a discriminatory and bigoted way. It comes from a good place, and I know +Derek Ross is not the kind of person who would ever act this way out of any meanness or negativity.
+Charles Cortes I totally agree. Even if you've never visited the restaurant your review is a means of help potential customers avoid a bad situation.
+David Kutcher also how you can say it wasn't education when the business owners have personally asked to learn more, well that's just denying the facts. Are you Republican by any chance?
They did nothing illegal here. They used a modern form of protesting; that's it. Call it what you want. They were smart about it and are showing those in the world what the power of social media can do, especially to those who refuse to at least be open to what it can offer. But since we live in 'Merica, every one is entitled to a voice/opinion.
If using reviews as a weapon to get your way is acceptable then where does it end? I'm certain many of you who are high-fiving these people would be appalled if a conservative group got together and targeted a small establishment with awful fake reviews because they catered to a gay clientele.

If some of you took issue with the restaurant then the appropriate method after trying dialogue would have been to go in person and peaceful protest outside if you felt that strongly.

Fake bad review bombing was a cowardly act.
And all Google should have done was to install some kind of indicator as to when the device is recording. I love technology as much as any of you, but I can also understand the concerns of other people, who are unaware of the state of the device pointing at them. This is an issue in communication, which is a good example of technology breaking unspoken behavioral codes and a one that is easily solved by technology adjustment. 
Wow. All of you have lost my respect. An exemplary model of how Explorers should not behave. This is bullying and furthers the perception that Explorers are elitist snobs. I'm incredibly surprised that you feel this is "educating" folks. I am an educator. This is mean-spirited and only illustrates how not to be a brand or product ambassador.
+James Barraford The problem with your argument is that you are assuming the reviews were fake when they were not. +Derek Ross was very clear about that:

_We took to Google Maps reviews and gave Feast of NYC a 1 star review and explained why (some more harsh than others, including myself). _

They did not say the food was bad, that the store had roaches or that the owners were criminals. They stated that this establishment treated Glass owners badly and thus were given a 1 star rate.
Using negative reviews as a cudgel is bullying, especially if it was not something that you personally experienced. You tried to elicit "education" by pain. That's despicable in my book.

Instead walk in to the restaurant when they're not busy, ask to speak with the owner and manager, and educate them. That would be the right way to handle it.

+Anthony Fawcett the fact that the owners asked speaks to their ability to look past these bullying actions, or to them feeling bullied enough to concede and call off this gang attack. It does not mean that these actions were proper, ethical, or valuable in any way.
I'll say my piece and make it brief. My parents own a restaurant that gives 50% of proceeds to charity and the other 50% goes to overhead and paying the staff. Creating positive change in peaceful ways is one thing, attacking a restaurant and going after them for their policies and concerns for business (i.e. attacking their livelihood) isn't ethical. Especially if you didn't eat at the restaurant and acted initially by hearing only one side of the story before taking action.
+Daniel Sachs that is the best comment that I've seen on the subject in a year. It addresses a fair concern.
Bring Mike here cool I'll be waiting and if you lied to me again as you know I had no problem calling back-up or po-po
For anyone interested, check out the profile of "Sean Sanders". It does seem to mesh with my suspicions about a reverse "astro-turf" type campaign.  Most of the comments against Google Glass and inciting a lot of the anger were from very empty, or new accounts. It could of course, just be a coincidence.
+David Kutcher That's your opinion. How often have you made a review on a product you never tried but read about it and expressed your opinion based on that information? People do it all the time. It happened to two people in that restaurant, it would have happened to every other Glass wearer that walked in. 

Fake would have been that they said the business did that when it didn't. I should know because I work for a law fir that has gotten fake bad reviews from clients that said plenty of lies. Turns out they were fake reviews from competing law firms. That is a fake review.
+Charles Cortes I have never left a review for anything that I did not purchase myself or experience firsthand. To do so would not be a review but would be gossip
I think Samsung knows something about fake reviews ;)
So, you basically cyber bullied the restaurant instead of respecting other people's privacy concerns. Now I understand what a glasshole is.
+Derek Ross, take a minute and think about this before you go being so proud of yourself. Your post doesn't say (nor does +Katy Kasmai's) whether she tried to educate the business owners before storming out and waging your 1-star war on them. It would have been more upstanding to recognize their concerns and offer to take off the Glass in exchange for an opportunity to come back and explain what this cool new technology is all about.

Instead, you smeared them. Some people don't read all the individual reviews of a place. They're busy, wanting to find a nice place, and see a low star rating and move on, never to look back. Most small businesses struggle to reach profitability for their first 2-3 years. And in NYC, that competition is exceptionally cutthroat.

After the blog posted their story, the Twitters started tweeting. From what I saw, Katy responded to some of Feast's supporters, and Feast politely said that it's nothing personal but they've had concerned complaints from multiple patrons. But Feast did not extend an invitation to have Katy come teach them, she invited herself, and as of yet on Twitter, Feast hasn't taken her up on her offer. I wouldn't either if I were them. This stunt has obviously left a very sour taste in a lot of people's mouths, mine included.

People's concerns about may be unfounded, but they're still entitled to have them. This is not the way to foster curiosity in those who don't know what Glad is or what it's about. This kind of thing alienates people. They will continue to refer to Explorers as Glassholes if Explorers continue to act like Glassholes. 
"Glasshole." Apropos, given this story.

Man, you guys should've just gone straight to the top and started a petition.

First off, as someone who has been the victim of this kind of Boo-Hoo, Entitled Hissy-Shitfit stuff at his own "mom-n-pop / I Deal With People For A Living" job in the past: get over yourselves (that's the polite version).

You guys are the definition of "First-World-Problems" and "Entitled". And if I had to guess based off of what I've read? You've probably never worked a service job in your entire lives. You know how I know this? Because nobody who has ever had to wash dishes and scrub floors for a living would ever pull this sort of privileged Little Lord bullshit on somebody else, because they didn't get their way.

That's the code, for anyone who ever busted ass: you don't throw others like you under the bus.

This post is written in a celebratory manner, and you're acting like this is some big Civil Rights Sit-In "win"; when really, you've just set Glass back to the Virtual Boy age, in terms of what sort of aroma it gives off to the average human being. And for what? So you can be awkward at lunches?

"I'm sorry Margot, I'm far too busy awkwardly swiping through retweets and making weird head gestures to enjoy this escargot."

You're fucking bullies. Plain and simple. And anyone outside of your "Klout" sphere will see it this way.

And yeah, maybe it's dumb to "ban Glass"; and yeah, there probably are people - people with disabilities, people who don't speak the language of the city - who could legitimately benefit from Glass. And that's fucking awesome!

Guess what? That's not you guys. And you're doing a shit job explaining that totally awesome sales pitch I've just given you.

You're not "enacting" anything (aside from your own hubris), nor are you "educating people on Glass." And you're certainly not making anything better for anyone who could potentially benefit from your $1,500 toy. Instead, you're simply bullying a small business by gaming a review system that people quickly eyeball when deciding whether or not it's worth spending money at a business. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you all violated the Google Maps / G+ Reviews TOS as well. I'm pretty sure it goes against the terms to submit erroneous ratings and reviews as a method of harassment.

You know what I do, when I run into a business that doesn't support my ideals? I stop fucking going there and give my money to another business, like a grown-ass adult, and that's that. If the service and products were subpar, then the bad reviews come. And I've done that; who hasn't? That's fair.

When I learned, long, long ago, that WalMart and Chick-Fil-A were exploitative and discriminatory, respectively, I just made sure I didn't buy anything from them. I didn't form a virtual mob and start a #War  over anything. If friends ever asked, I just explained: "Yeah, I think they're kind of asshole companies. Here's why."

Going forward, you should realize: Yes, people lose their jobs over this shit. Sometimes, paychecks are tied to stupid shit like "Yelp Ratings". And yes, low ratings means less people will go there; which means less income for the store; which means higher operating costs; which means less need for workers; which means: someone could actually get fired over your $1,500 luxury toy tantrum.

What kind of fucking hubris does one require to assume that the entire populace researching this place is going to comb through your reviews?

Being asked to remove a device that some people are uncomfortable with, and then, organizing an online harassment campaign - and having it "work" - is probably why I hate the internet a bit more, each day.

So, thanks for that, Glassholes.
+Ryan Martin Best part of that article: _"One recent Google reviewer of Feast's offerings, Zenzi Mulder, wrote: 'Awesome restaurant, kindly asked if I could remove my Google Glass because others were feeling uncomfortable, luckily I'm not the kind of entitled douche to refuse that or get butthurt. Had a great meal.'" 
Sorry, +Derek Ross, but I think those who chose to leave the 1-star reviews without frequenting the establishment - especially those who chose to call the owners/staff luddites, troglodytes and bigots in their reviews - are the exact reason Glass users get a bad rap. Katy wasn't shamed or treated poorly; she was asked not to wear Glass for an hour or so. I don't have a problem with her choosing to leave, nor writing a post about it, and I don't believe she asked anyone to do this on her behalf, so I think it's a shame she's catching flack for it. But to think you "protested" by holding a small businesses' rating hostage, for the goal of wearing Glass in their private establishment, seems really petty. Some places don't want you to eat without a nice suit and jacket because they think people should be well-dressed. That's fine; I won't eat there. I don't need to organize a protest of their "bigotry" and "bias" against the casually dressed.
I'm actually all for Glass. But it seems some idiots not very smart people think their rights to wear Glass is more important than public perception of it. 
See, this is the kind of shit that makes me pretty sure I wouldn't pay even a reasonable price ($2-300, tops) for Glass. This was douchebaggery at it's most douchey.

For the record, Google strictly forbids rating establishments one has not visited, so all of these cheese dicks dropping 1-star reviews can and should have their accounts deleted for it. Also, IIRC, the agreement Glassholes sign when they buy the douchegoggles specifically mentions complying with the wishes of public and private establishments with regard to wearing the device. 

The fact is, Glass is an abject failure, primarily because it was poorly designed, implemented, and marketed. I'm sure it will find a niche, but its utter lack of utility and ridiculous price point have made it the laughing stock of the tech world and have insured that it will never see the success of, say, Pebble.

It's really a shame, I was so excited at the initial concept. All this time later, and it just doesn't do anything cool.
Seems the twitter poster, in a not so eloquent way, objected to the pressure put on a private establishment to accept people who want to wear Google glass while visiting. The objection to allowing glass was voiced by a mob of people, mostly who hadn't visited the place in question, leaving bad ratings. Looks to me more like a case of the pot calling the kettle black
Seems like a large majority of people are on the business's side of the fence. 
As others have said, to leave a 1* review - for a restaurant you haven't visited - as some form of "protest" is nothing more than bullying and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Glass in its current format is in my opinion ridiculous. Comparing recording or taking a photo with it to that of a smartphone really winds me up...
+Jon Conley You're wrong. Simply put. Other avenues have been exhausted. Repeatedly. The entire Glass community has tried very hard to work with everyone with concerns - sharing their devices so that others can try it, explaining capabilities, and so on. But quite frankly, being called a Glasshole just because you're wearing the device and it isn't even on, is just not on. No one has a right to dictate what other's can and cannot wear so long as they are not violating the law. It's time that peoples ignorance and fear stops ruling and damaging the positive progress of useful sciences, technology, cultural activities and so on. Calling someone a glasshole or complaining because they are wearing glass is like telling a person wearing a shirt with an Arabic phrase on it that they are a terrorist. It's your ignrance, your fear, your pathetic and petty small mindness that is the problem here, not the glass wearers. 

We're not talking about entitlement, we're talking about simple civil rights. The right to go about your daily business un-acosted, un-abused, un-derided. The right to go into a restaurant, and to enjoy a drink and a meal with friends, without being harrassed, abused, or told that your harmless and completely innocuous attire is offending and frightening ignorant and bigoted patrons. 

This is two thousand and fucking fourteen for christ's sake and you lot all still live with your heads up your asses acting like your shit don't stink and that you're the only ones with rights. 

In your book, it's perfectly okay to mistreat other people that don't look, act, or wear what you wear. You criticise the Glass explorers for waging a protest - and yes, it was a peaceful protest - as bullying, but in the mean time completely and absolutely pathetically ignore or condone the bulling that they have relentlessly received and that was received in this instance. They tried talking to the management, they tried talking to the patrons, they have tried talking to everyone, but the republican party continues to exist for one simple reason - bullies and asshole-ic hypocrits. 
Ahhhh, someone who doesn't understand how the concept of "Private Property" works, writing a manifesto, explaining how "wrong" I am...
Well that's set back the public perception of Glass a fair bit and given the anti-Glass mob enough ammunition to last them a while.

This is all over Twitter and being picked up by non tech commentators, and heading towards mainstream media. None of the coverage is complementary.

Not the smartest move imho.
+Anthony Fawcett Lol. If you bought what you're selling, you wouldn't try to pass off the douchegoggles as 'attire'. They aren't polo shirts, and the tiny, insignificant number of people wearing them aren't some persecuted minority. GG is not the future, it's a flop.

The restaurant owners did what any reasonable business owner should: responded to the wishes and concerns of its patrons. You want your little band of suckers early adopters to get hassled less? Cut it out with this type of crap, and the 'poor me' attitude.

You bought a $1500 toy, and some people don't want you to play with it in their establishments. Cry me a fucking river.
+Anthony Fawcett Oh, where to start...

Yes, calling someone a glasshole just for wearing it is judgmental and wrong. But calling someone a glasshole because they're wearing Glass and acting like an entitled asshole is, well, accurate.

Civil rights? Really?

Protest is fine. Defamation and libel are not. +Katy Kasmai was the patron, and her review was hers to leave, but the rest of the folks on the bandwagon are in the wrong.

You say they tried talking to the management, patrons, and everyone. Where did you see this, because I didn't see it anywhere. Not saying it didn't happen, just asking for the link. (Also, your "they" was actually just a "she".) 
Giving a restaurant a bad review for poor service is not bullying. It's normal.
+Spencer Petersen no one defamed anyone, complaints were worded exactly as what happened. The truth is the truth. 

And yes, in this case it was a she, but you know what? 'She' is hardly the first. People have been threatened with violence for wearing Glass even when it's switched off. People have been harassed. They've been accosted in public places and private businesses. There is a great deal of ignorance and fear around Glass and mainstream media driven by a direct agenda is feeding it and keeping it in a frenzy. At some point you have to stand up for yourself and say 'enough, you can't bully us like this, and if you do, we will make our voices loud and we will protest. We will boycott and encourage others to boycott.' and that is exactly what has happened here. 

And yes, civil rights. Because it's just yet another form of discrimination and bigotry against people based on the way they look and behave. 

And yes, 'She' tried talking to all concerned but they weren't interested in listening. Well, now they are, because they understand it's in their best interest to listen. Or is it your opinion that you're only allowed to join a protest and stand in solidarity when you've directly be affected, otherwise you have to do it alone? 
+Scott Wilson But getting all your buddies to give bad reviews to a restaurant they've never set foot in is. 
It's just a shame there are so many anti-technology rednecks in the east village. You'd think they'd be more tolerant. I heard a rumor they are bright educated people. 
+Spencer Petersen No it isn't. That's also normal. I didn't have to go to chick-fil-a and eat there to give them a bad review when they came out as anti-gay. Bullying someone because of how they look because of a misunderstanding about a device they use isn't very different from any other form of high school level intimidation. "boohoo. Apple didn't make them". That's what  it really amounts to. It's just a shame that the gay-bashers are mad they can't bash on gays anymore so they are bashing on glass users. There are your bullies there. 
"Civil Rights," lel.

Man, that's some sad education, when you equate The Civil Rights Movement to being a Glasshole.

Again, my friend: You don't understand how private property works.

In Americatown, property owners absolutely maintain the right to ask you to dress or behave a certain way. Ever heard of "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service"?

This isn't a "Freedom of Speech" thing and you aren't talking about court steps and protected rights. And it's not "bigoted" to have policies about electronics -- the least of which is a niche toy at this point; so long as it isn't a violation of the ADA, there's no foul play here.

You're out of your fuckin' element, Donny.
To get all her followers to give fake 1 star reviews of the restautant is childish to say the least. I am all for the general public being able to use Google glass wherever they like, but you are using their premises and at the end of the day they have the right to ask you to remove the Google glass if they want. To give fake reviews out of spite is pure bullying and I am ashamed of everyone who has done it.
You are an adult, therefore please behave as one.
+Graham Chestney For one, I know her. She didn't "get" her followers to do anything. They did it on their own. Because the restaurant is wrong. If they are going to ban the google glass cellphone, they need to ban all cellphones. They allow people to take pictures and video with their iphones if they want. It's the same exact thing, except that Glass actually takes shorter video than an iPhone, and it's more obvious when you are using it. That's why they get a negative review. That's a great reason to give a negative review. Yes, they can be petty chidlish assholes and ban Google Glass. And because of that they can and DID get negative reviews. Because they deserved them. 

The reviews weren't fake. They were real. The restaurant is exhibiting poor service by not allowing one cellphone type but allowing another. 
+Scott Wilson the reviews are fake because the people who left them had never been and only did so after being prompted by her post and other glass explorers on the post. As for you calling them childish for banning Google glass I beg to differ.
Now listen carefully I will say this only once it is the right of the restaurant owners to ask of you the patron to behave in a manner that does not upset the other patrons, it is their duty.
If you can not understand this you have very little respect for other people but yourself. 
+Graham Chestney The reviews are REAL because they clearly state why they are negative. Now, I understand you clearly have some sort of willful ignorance here, so I'll talk nice and slow and use small words:

1) I read the reviews so I have the "knowing what I'm talking about" advantage over you that you don't have. The reviews clearly state WHY they are negative. The reason they are negative does not require the person to actually go to the restaurant. You don't have to GO THERE to give a negative review based upon a policy that negatively effects customer service. It wasn't about the food. It was about the service and policy. 

2) The restaurant can set any policy they want. And if they piss off a class of users by being ignorant "style bigots" and think their shitty east village restaurant is "too cool" for Google Glass, then they will get negative reviews. That's how the whole system works. You fuck over a customer, you earn a negative review. 

I can't make it any more clear. You are wrong. I am right. 
+Scott Wilson I think the word review means your view of being at said place, therefore making a review when you have not visited said place is null and void. Therefore you argument is invalid. End of.
I like how many of you use terms like "civil rights", "bigots", "discrimination" over a fucking pair of glasses. Really, you feel discriminated against, like your civil rights have been trampled on? Over some glasses in a restaurant. You people are a joke. Whiny entitled assholes. You are everything that is wrong with this country. You epitomize the whiny, pussification of this country. Someone hurt my feelings, so I should try and ruin their business, so they can lay off all their employees, and all those people can suffer because I had to take of my precious glasses. #YouAreADouchebag
+Graham Chestney Lots of people think they have the right to tell other people how to live. We call those people assholes. 
+Graham Chestney The reviews are valid. That's why they are still up. They were reviews of a policy. You don't have to visit a place to negatively review a policy. I win. You lose. I have reality on my side. More importantly, the restaurant clearly considers them real because they've invited Katy to their place to teach them how Glass works. They changed their mind. I guess they didn't like getting manipulated by the tiny fringe nutball anti-glass haters. It's nice to see they've learned how to think for themselves. 
There you go again with the bad language +Scott Wilson
It is said people who use swearwords only do so because they cannot think of anything else to say.
+Ruben Alvarez And people have used similar arguments to yours to defend hating on gays, black people, nerds, women, you name it. Asshole haters always have some logical reason to justify their hatred. 
+Graham Chestney Is your hope that you have an argument you can win, or that you'll actually convince me not to swear?  I think we both know you are trying to score "thread points" like some high school debate club captain. 
Actually no, I choose to do this of my own accord not to win points just to show my distaste on the sheer arrogance of a few rich kids who got told off for playing with their toys at the dining table.
+Graham Chestney Ahh. So it's jealousy. The truth finally comes out. Damn those rich kids shakes fist angrily and their rock music, smoking their marijauna cigarettes and driving their motorcycles. What you've actually done is shown more of your ignorance. So not only do you not know how glass actually works, and don't understand how restaurant reviews work, and think you have the right to tell other people how to live based upon your flawed understanding of things, you don't even know who you are talking about. I know most of the glass explorers. These are people I've been chatting  with on here for over two years. I don't even LIKE google glass. But I'm mature enough to not hate people that like something that I dislike. Most of them are in their 30's. Most of them are working professionals. A lot of them are older than you are. They are UNIX admins. C programmers. Teachers. Pillars of the community. And they are early adopters. 

I can remember when I rushed out to get my new iPad when it was first released. 

"You are so stupid. You realize that's just a big iphone right lol. What a moron."

"You actually bought one of those? You stupid rich kids. Nobody likes those things."

"You can't even write on it with a pencil. You can't even hook up a mouse. It's useless. Can you run microsoft office on it? You should get your money back."

Same thing. Different product. Same fucking morons hating on it. 
+Scott Wilson You make my point for me. Comparing being asked to take off your glasses at a restaurant with the plight of gays, blacks, and women in this country is the definition of idiocy. When was the last time someone was beat, raped, imprisoned, or killed for wearing glass? You are disrespecting everyone who truly fought for rights with this. If they asked her pompous, entitled ass to leave because she was a woman, or gay, I'd be the first one picketing the restaurant. And not cowardly online, but there. But that simply is not the case. The restaurant has every right to decide what people wear or do not wear in their business. #Seriously
+Ruben Alvarez Oh, I'm sorry, were you just trying to explain when it's ok to be a hateful asshole? Please, go ahead and list all the times it's ok to be an ignorant hater. You know, where you hate something you don't understand because you are afraid of it. Go ahead and explain why this time it's ok. I'll wait. 
No not jealous at all I could buy one tomorrow if I wanted to. There you go again assuming that I'm a hater of Google glass. I'm not I think it is very good, what I hate dislike is a few people who get upset because they were asked to remove it to make the rest if the general public (who generally don't understand what it does) more comfortable, and then to publicly embarrass the restaurant owners with spam reviews which Imho is like the behaviour of a spoiled child.
She should have taken the Glass off. I do when asked. This is the same as "No shirt, no shoes, no service". Its a private establishment and this Katy girl got embarrassed probably and this is the outcome. Disgraceful. Its called manners and obviously you and your " friends" have none. 
+Graham Chestney Again, the restaurant is free to do whatever they want. It's their place. They could ban iphones and ipads and gopro video cameras. They could ban e-cigarettes despite them being harmless. They are free to do whatever stupid thing they want to piss off customers and turn away business. And they'll get negative reviews for it because that's how the world works. Thankfully this restaurant figured out they were being stupid and changed their mind. 
+Scott Wilson Are you done sucking glass owners dick? You really sound like a fanboy that can't afford them. You sound desperate to sit at the cool kids table. Your persecution complex generally comes from people who were unpopular as kids. Where you beat up in school Scott? Did they give you wedgies? Clean the cum of your cheeks there slobbering Scott. Yes sir I hate people like yourself. No problem saying it and no need to explain it. Pretty straight forward #Slurp #CantUderstandUWithADickInYourMouth
+Ruben Alvarez That's pretty pathetic. I mean, you are pretty pathetic. It's pretty clear why a redneck like you hates google glass. 
Yup. Meet your rational glass-haters folks. They are mostly like that guy there. 
+Scott Wilson So let me get this straight, you were beat up as a kid, yet you didn't do well in class? There are no rednecks in New England buddy. I live 60 miles from this restaurant, and coincidentally own a pair of Google Glass. Your defense of this garbage is pathetic. You attacking all kinds of people is pathetic. You backing down like a dick sucking chump when someone comes back at you is pathetic. I don't hate Glass, I hate dumb asses like yourself. I hate stupidity in all its forms, including +Scott Wilson. Now go ahead and block me and cry into your pillow in the basement of your mom's house. 
Is it not classed as bullying because you're doing it digitally... Right..? 
+Ruben Alvarez I'm honestly amazed at what an asshole you are. Either that, or the worst failtroll in history. No, you don't get to decide what we talk about. You don't get to change the subject. You certainly don't get to defend being an asshole. That won't play here. We hate people like you. People like you do nothing of any value. All you do is hate other people and try to punish us because your life sucks, and you turned into a loser as an adult. You perfectly represent the anti-glass hater. 
+Walter Yeti No, it's probably because giving a bad restaurant a bad review isn't bullying. That's just normal. It was a bad restaurant. Thankfully they are going to work with Katy to become better. 
+Scott Wilson you really are a wonder of the digital age aren't you. Don't get your way so all you can do is call others derogatory names, well well done you.
Have a gold star and you get to sit on the special chair for the rest of the day. Congratulations
+Graham Chestney You are a self described 40 something gay man that is defending an asshole that used no fewer than ten anti-gay epithets while trying to insult me because I owned him in a debate. Let that sink in. You are defending the classic homophobic jock wannabe. That's how much of a hypocrite you are. 
I'm not defending anyone +Scott Wilson all I said was congratulations to him for getting you to show what a complete idiot you are, oh and FYI bringing my sexuality into your argument has nothing to do with this.
+Graham Chestney So it's ok for an anti-gay hater to use foul language because you agree with his point, but it's not ok for me to call you an asshole for defending him. 
+Scott Wilson get over yourself sweetheart, this is not about me being gay or whether he hates gays or not, it is about the sheer small mindedness of a few Google glass users who have a bad case of butthurt after being asked (quite rightly) to remove their Google glass to respect (quite rightly) the other users of the restaurant. Now I suggest you stop with the trying to get the last word, and go find something more productive to do.
+Graham Chestney You are defending small mindedness and ignorance with your own willful ignorance. You simply want to be "right" so bad because like a lot of people you have the mental defect were being "wrong" is the worst thing you can imagine. Mothers suffer from this a lot. You imagine reality is this thing you can change to fit your argument. It doesn't work that way. And deep down we both know you are wrong. Yet you want to be right so badly that you'll defend the worst kind of human being out of some misguided sense of comradery like some battered wife. I imagine you own a lot of Apple products. Their psychological marketing plays well with people that want to always be right without having to think. People suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. 
Lets perform a little experiment. Just for kicks. Lets pretend it's my restaurant, and I enforce a strict no-iphones policy. Sure, this won't matter so much in places outside of NYC and the Valley where the iPhone isn't popular, but lets say I do this. Because since the iPhone can take longer, higher quality video than Glass, and you can't even tell if it is recording video, it is clearly a bigger threat to the privacy of my customers. 

Do you think I'd get some negative reviews?
Dear poor deluded +Scott Wilson seeing as you went and looked at my profile to pick up the fact the I'm a "40 something gay guy" to use to berate my argument, you really aren't very bright if you'd had taken time just to look though my posts you would find I'm an avid ingress player, therefore at this moment in time VERY unlikely to be an apple fanboy. Also you forgot to mention that i am Christian too, so would you like to take that and twist some fun out of that too? 
+Graham Chestney I didn't have to look at your profile. In fact, I haven't. Try hovering over your own picture. 
+Scott Wilson this is from the terms of use for Google reviews, I don't think it needs much explanation to completely invalidate all of your arguments.

"Reviews should describe your personal, first-hand experience with a specific place. Don’t post reviews based on someone else’s experience, or that are not about the specific place you are reviewing. Reviews are not a forum for personal rants or crusades, nor are they meant to be a forum for general political or social commentary"
+Graham Chestney Oh. Well, you get a popup of the profile picture with a cutout of the background and a short bit of the bio. I make it a point to not look at profiles casually because I imagine at some point people will be able to tell who has and how often. Kudos for using Android, and being a Christian. I use everything and I've decided to believe in all Gods. Every religion is right. That way I have all bases covered. 
+Richard Gibbens That's subject to interpretation. My firsthand experience with Chick-fil-a was that they donated money to organizations that tried to stop same sex marriages. So I didn't need to visit their place of business to negatively review them. That was my first hand experience. Not someone elses. That was based upon their policy. Not someone else's. My review stated I could not eat there because of their policy. It wasn't a personal rant. It wasn't a crusade. It was short and sweet and within the rules, just like the posts by the Glass folks for Feast that also don't violate the terms of service, and are therefore still there. 
Fascinating how strongly people feel about a very simple piece of technology.

As I read through the contents here I find it increasingly hard to sympathize with either side.

I'm not a fan of the review tactic though for the exact same reason I don't like it when people give one star reviews on Amazon over an issue rather than the product.

Can't deny that it's effective, but effective and right are not the same thing.
+Eoghann Irving If a place had horrible parking, or a crime problem, or kids doing drugs in their parking lot, even if the food was amazing, they would get negative reviews. The entire experience is being reviewed. There's a place I'm not going to name here in DC that has outstanding french food, but the service is absolutely terrible, and because of that they get horrible reviews. It's the same exact thing. The telling thing here is the restaurant is taking measures to correct their mistake. 
+Scott Wilson your interaction with Chick-fil-A is a second hand experience on two counts. Where they donate money to was not based on you actually visiting them, and their donation to a third party did not have a direct impact on you, only an indirect.

There is no "interpretation." It specifically says "Don't post reviews based on someone else’s experience," and every one of these reviews were based on a single incident with a single person.

How much more clear could it possibly be? 
+Richard Gibbens But that's simply not true. Their experience started when they found out the restaurant was unfairly banning their mobile device of choice while allowing other more invasive ones. That allowed them to formulate a full opinion on whether or not they would dine there. As Glass usage increases, that's the kind of thing a Glass user is going to want to know. People use Glass. 13 people decided they were not going to eat there based on a restaurant policy. Restaurant policy is part of the experience. It would be the same if they had any other discriminatory policy. The exact same thing would happen. The entire review feature exists so restaurants can figure out what they are doing wrong. In this case they found out they shouldn't have banned Glass, and now they are working to correct it. The system clearly worked perfectly. 
Well if nothing else this thread is a great source of people to preemptively block.
But this is still cyberbullying. There are ways and means of addressing an issue with the restaurant owners, who asked the lady to remove it for perfectly valid reasons. If you went to a cinema wearing one would you get as upset when asked to remove it?
+Jon Conley I love your assumptions. I've worked plenty of service jobs in my life.

As for reviews, this has helped them. They've received tons of 5 star reviews over the past day because of this. I wonder how many of those are fake reviews? I wonder how many of them from the SF have been there? This place is making bank right now.
To be clear, I don't disagree with the need for further Glass education to change the perception of the masses, it's the same thing that happened with landline phones, Kodak cameras, cell phones, camera phones, etc. I support Glass and what I believe it can be for society in the future.

However, that does not change the fact that these reviews explicitly went against the rules of Google Reviews. If each one of those reviewers physically visited the restaurant first-hand and posted those reviews it would be a different story, but they did not.

The person physically smoking a cigarette is getting first hand smoke. EVERYONE ELSE affected by that smoke is second hand. The rules say reviews should be based on first hand experience.

I'm not interested in arguing, I've just stated the facts. If you choose to ignore them then you're in the same category as people who argue about climate change and thus aren't worth trying to convince. 
I don't think the fact that others might be leaving positive fake reviews somehow makes it okay to leave negative fake reviews +Derek Ross. Two wrongs etc.

People are clearly irrationally worked up on this issue... on both sides
+Graham Chestney Yes there are ways and means of addressing an issue. The review process. They did the review process. It worked. The restaurant admitted they were wrong, and are looking to correct their mistake. The consumer won. We no longer have to worry about a few anti-technology nutballs ruining our dining experience at that restaurant. More than likely, one of these anti-glass fringe lunatics complained at the restaurant, and gave the false impression that there actually was some sort of problem. Thankfully the review process allowed the restaurant to figure out they had been tricked by some nut. 
+Jason Gregory it's not about that. If you would have read, you would know she decided to leave. The issue is they weren't willing to learn about Glass. They were biased to one of their customers. All she wanted to do was explain to them how Glass worked. The end result is them saying they wanted to know more about Glass. That's better than dozens of people like the many commenting here that have never used Glass and aren't willing to learn more.
+Derek Ross you also don't seem to be so smart at maths. A single 5 star review does not cancel a 1 star review. There is no justification in what has been done, if you learn nothing from the many comments here, then you are plain ignorant.
+Eoghann Irving In public over the past year I've had over a thousand total strangers come up to me and love Glass. Yet there's a few isolated incidents that make huge headlines about how horrible Glass is supposedly. It's quite saddening and aggravating to see and hear about this time and time again. This has made me quite sensitive to the issue.

I agree with both sides too. I think both sides, including myself, were wrong even though good intentions were behind both sides.
+Ryan Martin All that happened was the review process worked properly. I mean, unless glass users are to be classified as sub-human to where even their opinions shouldn't matter. 
+Derek Ross I'm tending to agree with both sides also, but the quarter came up heads so I'm arguing this side. 
+Derek Ross if that's the whole reason they asked her to remove it, one customer is one customer the restaurant has a duty of care to have their customers best interests at heart even if it is just one customer. What I have said was it was totally unjust of all the "glass users" to create negative ratings on a place they had never been just because someone didn't like being told to remove their Google glass. 
+Derek Ross I have Glass. No point to it at a dinner table. She was the guest. All this because she had to have it her way is how it is coming off to the general public. Is this the new "grownup tantrum" now? Digital smear campaigns because of self entitlement? 
+Scott Wilson You really do tend to poorly construct your arguments in this type of scenario; it makes it seem like there's more bias than factual analysis of the information in front of you. That's fine and gravy, just try not to be a troll-hard guy when doing it. 

You're trying to say that the rules are "open for interpretation". That's true, in a manner of speaking. Although, it isn't up to yours or my interpretation - but that of whoever at Google that decides to analyse that particular review. Your defence is that these reviews are based on a "store policy". However, it wasn't even classified as a policy at the point whereas Katy was asked to remove them (based on all of the evidence thus far). She was, politely, asked to remove Google Glass based on the privacy concerns of other patrons. 

The war against this one establishment is just a sign of foolhardy bullying, plain and simple. "We won!" - er, excuse me, but there wasn't really much you were fighting against. In the short term, it's nice that they've stated that they're more open to learning more about Google Glass (so they can, hopefully, pass on this knowledge to patrons that do complain). In the long term, it just shows that the few that get their panties in a bundle over being asked to remove their Glass are going to be a problem (rather than being respective of people around them). Granted, I know more about Glass than - probably - even you. I know that you actually have to activate the video capturing (and it is quite noticeable if you've been a Glass user yourself - having to press/hold down the camera button, or a quick tap for a photo), But lack of knowledge of a device that isn't even freely on the market just yet is pretty much to be expected. Do you hear of people who are testing new hardware (be it mobile or not) with new features start a childish protest against a company for asking them to turn it off out of not knowing what it does? Uh... no, because they're pretty much aware that it comes with being a tester. 

Let it be known that all users of Glass right now are considered "Explorers" (aka: Beta Testers). You are using a device that is NOT commercially available. Thus, people will be concerned for their privacy as they've only been told that it can capture video/photos with ease. Jingoistic behaviour over this misunderstanding is pretty juvenile, at best. It's nice that people have fought for their freedoms to wear Glass, at least in some of the news-worthy moments. This? This just shows lack of understanding, narrow-mindedness, and elitism. You're obviously just fail-trolling with fantastically ridiculous analogies.
+Endaeias Morgan Now redo your entire argument from the other side. Understanding that it's less than 1 in 1000 people that complain about Glass. Factor that into the logic of banning the device from a public eating place because one person in 1000 is "uncomfortable", and factor that it's in reality a less invasive technology than a typical cellphone. 
+Graham Chestney I agree. I also believe it's unjust to make assumptions about a product you know nothing about. Kind of like taking someone's advice on a subject, a review if you will, that has no merit.
1) Someone might make a video of me!
     a) You aren't that interesting
     b) It would be painfully obvious they were doing it
     c) It barely takes 10 seconds of video at a time. 
     d) Nobody is going to waste their meager glass battery life on your boring ass

2) But it should be banned because they might do it!
     a) They might also pick up their steak knife and throw it at you. Should we ban those?
    b) They might also throw their chair at you. Should we sit on the floor to eat? I mean it could happen. 
+Scott Wilson You're basically trying to rule out the fact that people are prone to this type of misunderstanding because of the pre-existing stigma with Glass. While you and I may agree that the technology isn't really all that evasive (compared to current tech that's in commonplace usage), I can't say that's a justifiable purpose as to why you'd start a war against an establishment. It's one thing to call or send e-mails (heck, even snail mail). However, reviews effect the entire view of the establishment as a whole. These reviews should, in practical theory, be fraudulent based on Google's policies. 

There's no first-hand experience, nor were it a policy. This is just a holistic argument, it's not connected to the company as a whole. It's just one scenario that occurred based on past experiences of that establishment.  So it makes little sense to spam their reviews with low stars just to prove a point that you're upset with them asking someone to remove Glass. 
+Graham Chestney Again, they reviewed the policy. The policy is part of the place. That's completely normal. It would be like if your local cable internet provider refused to serve Christians. Same exact thing. 
Yes yes they reviewed their policy, it still stinks of digital bullying and by that you should not be congratulating yourselves. By doing what you have done in the way it was done will only alienate other people who don't understand about Google glass. Now are you going to spend the rest of your life spamming online reviews with negative reviews to get your ideals across?
+Ruben Alvarez there are rednecks in new England. That's like saying they're aren't racist people here either.

Also, lots of "holier than thou" people acting like they've never did something someone frowned upon.

Guess you guys aren't human. 
+Scott Wilson You're making a bold assumption that was never confirmed regardless of the situation. This is the whole point: 

1) Unless clearly stated on any of their in-house flyers, website, or otherwise - it is NOT a "policy". A policy would be "Fancy Attire Only" or "Dress Business Casual" or "No Smoking Permitted in this Establishment". Asking someone to remove Glass based on other patrons' lack of understanding on the device isn't exactly what the business world considers a policy. 

2) The bigger issue is that it seems that this is a self-justified war against "non-users". There are better ways to have stated dissatisfaction with this ONE instance than to effect the business as a whole. Your rights do not trump another person's rights (and vice versa). Thus, when asked politely, you have just been given a choice: You can leave or you can remove the device. That's the choice that you're given, the decision you make.

+Graham Chestney The completely level-headed way to put this would be, if only there would be a way to do the review without assigning stars. If they could simply say "stay away glass users!" without putting any stars in at all, that would have been fine in my book. That being said, those stars are there, and people are going to use them. And if their star rating hadn't dropped by one, they'd have never fixed the problem with their restaurant. So while I'm not normally an ends justifies the means kind of guy, it did work out. and the consumer did win. 
+Scott Wilson only reason I commented is because I live here and traveled all over new England in my short life and have met multiple. Especially toward Vermont. 
+Endaeias Morgan Oh, no doubt. But again, if you treat a class of people badly, you will get negative feedback. She left quietly and gave them the negative review they earned. It's their choice now on how to deal with the problem the review process uncovered with their policy. It sounds like they are chosing to fix it. 
If you really believed in rights you would be helping out at a charity or doing voluntary work, bullying a business on the internet and leaving fake reviews to get them to change their policy is both cowardly and self-righteous, there was a world once before the internet where if people didn't like a place, they just wouldn't go there again and they'd tell their mates and they'd make up their own minds, they wouldn't organise a mob to stand outside with signs, you are not the hero in this story as you believe yourself to be, you are the villain.
+Bill Chalmers It's pretty clear they were real reviews by real people with real names, and that bullying isn't what you call a negative review. It's like how the adult children call anybody they disagree with a "troll". Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't make them a "bully" or a "troll". More often than not it just means you are oversensitive, or you are trying to unfairly brand people negatively because of a personal bias. 
I just think you people saying that "people used to just leave and vote with their wallet" are just wrong.

People get irate when upset at a eating establishment whether fast food or fine dining. Don't act like everyone in the world is super civil and politically correct.

That's living in a bubble and not reality. And I'm not defending the review action, I'm just surprised so many people think this is such an big issue. 
+Jasen Minus The easily manipulated get whipped up into a frenzy by the corporate sponsored  hate press at places like valleywag (who is apple sponsored) and Cnet (who is apple and microsoft sponsored). They are literally paid to put a negative slant on anything Google they can. The easily influenced fall for it hook line and sinker. 
+Bill Chalmers and you missed the entire point. Nowhere was it said that the restaurant was bullied into changing their policies. A result of the reviews made them say they're willing to learn about Glass.

My very last statement says whatever the outcome it's a victory. I meant I don't care if they ban Glass or not. I truly do not care. I do care about banning Glass without knowing anything about it. They opted to learn more. That is the victory. Education.
And yet no one has answered my question about would people still get upset about being asked to remove Google glass in a cinema?
+Graham Chestney I go to a lot of pre-screenings because my awesome girlfriend has some connection of some sort. They always take your phones away and put them in bags. Seeing as how Google Glass is just a cellphone you wear on your head, I'd expect no different treatment. 
+Graham Chestney I've worn Glass a dozen times over the past year to a movie theater. No issues here. Would I remove Glass? No. I'd leave the theater instead.
+Derek Ross I'd actually take them off because my general rule of thumb is treat it like a cellphone. I'm not on my cellphone in a theater, so I wouldn't have glass on. But again, that's just me. I only have a few hours experience with them. 
+Scott Wilson I've turned Glass off, just like my phone, but taking Glass off would be pointless. I don't know that I'm wearing it and it doesn't get in the way. Having it sit on my lap would get in the way.
+Sean Sanders not forcing others to wear Glass. Just securing the right to wear it if you want. Shining light on ignorance is always a worthwhile endeavor.
+Bill Chalmers ignorance needs to be called out and corrected. It is not about rights, it if about being right about the device.
Can we collectively add amazing reviews for the restaurant for their stance against Glass or even better is there a way to collectively write bad reviews about +Google Glass? This is not win-win. This is "I'm singling out a business, victimizing them into submission by making ourselves look like victims, threatening livelihoods so I can wear a head device." Stop trying to defend the approach. I like a lot of people here but this was not a win-win. Not at all.
+Derek Ross: I was right. Thanks to +Richard Gibbens for pasting it.

Off-topic reviews: Reviews should describe your personal, first-hand experience with a specific place. Don’t post reviews based on someone else’s experience, or that are not about the specific place you are reviewing. Reviews are not a forum for personal rants or crusades, nor are they meant to be a forum for general political or social commentary. If you want to report incorrect information about a place, use the Report a problem link for that place instead of using a review.

You were saying?
+Jon Conley doubtful that any of these people, such as +Charles Cortes and others, will be removing their off-topic reviews that were not first-hand experiences
One man's bullying is another man's civil protest. The business was in the wrong here, just as so many of you are in the wrong for defending them by denying glass wearers the opportunity and avenue of protest. 

A business relies on their customers, and should treat ALL of their customers with dignity and respect, not just the ones that are the loudest. It should not be necessary for actions like these to be resorted to. It should ABSOLUTELY not be necessary. 

It was, and more, it achieved it's aims of educating and giving the business a reason to be concerned about how they treat their customers. 

Glass-bashing, and the verbal, emotional, and physical bullying of Glass wearers has to stop. If you stay silent, or defend those who either stay silent or are complicit, then you too are complicit. It's nothing more than ignorance and bigotry, and fie on any of you who think it's okay.
+Damian Hoskin I tried it. Didn't like it. I just couldn't justify it when all l really wanted was the hands free voice. I got that with the moto x with about ten times more battery life.

Again: not a "civil rights" issue.

And again: You don't understand how private property works.
+Damian Hoskin oh, I don't really. This topic just brings out ignorant biased types and they are loads of fun to fuck with.
+Anthony Fawcett is your Google Glass a medical necessity? would you be disabled without it? or is it instead something that you choose to use/wear, and could turn off and put away if you so chose?
You're not too bright, so I'm going to explain a little more, hopefully you'll display some evolved social understanding and grok the point. 

See, if a gay man walked into a private establishment and was refused a drink on the basis he was gay, that would be discrimination. Legal or not. It is what it is. If I go into a store wearing a pro-libertarian shirt, or one that is directly hostile to republicans and am refused service because of that shirt and for no other reason, that's discrimination. Now, the store owner may be legally within their rights to do so, it is after all their private business, HOWEVER, that does not mean I cannot speak my mind, nor that I cannot protest such behaviour and attitudes. This is how society evolved and grows up. Through civil dissent. It's why we all boycotted chick-filla, it's why we stood together against SOPA. It's why people march in the streets and block traffic - to be heard and seen and listened to.

Protest in all its forms is the one, the only real way that social change can occur. EVERYONE has the right to civil dissent and the freedom of speech. 

SO lel you pathetic small minded bigot, congratulations on being part of the problem. 
+David Kutcher You mean like people CHOOSE to be homosexual? People like you still be believe it's a choice, right? 

Being a medical necessity has nothing to do with it, and that is the lamest strawman I've seen in this thread. It literally has nothing to do with it. This is about changing social attitudes, not conforming to them. 

God you are such an idiot. What on earth is it like in your tiny little brain?
Today it's glass, tomorrow it's your phone or smart watch. Why discriminate? If they didn't allow cameras and smartphones is one thing..but not allowing only glass just hurts the future of technology. 
Did you just compare one's choice of wearable technology to that of being born a certain way? Of course glass is a choice. We are at the point off the thread where I mute it. The restaurant got trolled and this thread is turning into the same.
+Anthony Fawcett what are you talking about? I'm saying you are making a choice to wear Google Glass when it is not a medical necessity nor that is part of you, such as your sex, skin color, or sexual orientation. Unless you are wearing Glass for reasons such as those, like it helps you see (because you're blind), hear (because you're deaf), or some other reason that would leave you disabled if you took it off, then it is simply an accessory. An expensive accessory. And you could choose to simply turn it off and take it off.

Just like at the movies they ask you to turn off your cell phones. Now I woudn't ask a doctor (who could be on-call) to turn off their cell phone, but I bet even then they'd silence the ringer and excuse themselves before talking. Because that's polite behavior.

This isn't Civil Rights. This is simply entitlement and bullying.
+Jon Conley I don't even own Glass, but I know people that do, and I've seen the kind of bigotry and small minded attitudes they have been exposed to. So no, I'm not #RosaParks2014  I'm not even one of the people who left a review - but I fully support and approve of the actions taken by my friends and other Glass explorers who did. It doesn't matter whether YOU think this is an important social issue or not, the fact is that a demographic of our society is directly being bullied, harassed, and discriminated against on nothing more than their choice to wear a piece of technology that augments their lives and in no way impacts the lives of others any more than existing technology that is commonly accepted everywhere, indeed less. 

Glass and wearable tech is only the current cusp of transhumanism, it's time to get attitudes and understanding in line with the year.
Wow that is a crazy analogy. When does some form of social etiquette and the governance of it in a private premises become a civil rights argument? If the ability for people to covertly record video makes customers feel uneasy then it is a no brainer to remove that element from a premises. That is what this is about right? The ability to covertly record video?
+David Kutcher who are you to say what is or isn't part of me? Just because my self image doesn't conform to yours doesn't make it invalid. Tech is definitely a part of my self image, it is part of who I am, as much as the clothes and fashion style I pursue and the way I cut my hair. I don't go around asking people to cover up or remove their tattoos, or take out their piercings or gauge rings. Who the hell are you to tell me that my tech is not part of who I am? Who the hell are you to label and box and circumscribe what I can consider part of me?

Just who the hell do you think you are, you white bread, conformist, retrograde?

You need to wake the hell up, because these things are going to be implants soon enough. 
Does the restaurant scan for spy pens, or ensure no one wears a memoto if they are worried about covertly recording folks? Much cheaper and more discrete methods than Glass
I think that the problem here is discrimination. In the movie theater all electronics are not allowed +David Kutcher. 
+Damian Hoskin You can't covertly record video with Glass. You can however do it with a $50 button hole camera you can buy off the shelf, or $100 camera glasses with a pinhole camera. You can also do it with a cell phone. 

Glass is visible, you can tell when it is turned on, you can tell where it is pointed. 
The problem is ignorant haters like it always is. People that can't be bothered to understand what they are actually talking about, that think they have the God given right to hate things they don't even understand.

"How dare I have to understand something I hate!"

And the anti-glass crowd that keeps repeating the same fucking lies are beyond morons. They are like the Fox News of tech idiocy. The only thing missing is them shrieking "benghazi!" every ten minutes like fucking tools. We need to do something in this country about the perceived "right to be stupid" that keeps ruining everything for the rest of us. 
+Sivan Rehan I'm sorry, but I don't find the polite asking of an individual to turn off and put away an accessory piece of technology to rise to the level of considering it "discrimination".
+David Kutcher Well that would depend. Are they doing it for all the same technology? Are they forcing iphone users to put away their worse iPhones and turn them off?
+David Kutcher And that's why you're a bigot. YOU don't find. YOU don't understand. You're out of touch and out of date. You probably don't even realise how rude and offensive you're being. You probably think it's okay to act like that because YOU don't see it as anything more than a device. It's time for that generation of thinking to be retired. It's no longer relevant and will only become less so with every passing day, week, month, year.
If I catch anyone with "turned on glass" and their face pointed in my direction I will deal with them in the same manner as I would with a creeper doing the same thing with all the other gadgets you so aptly named +Anthony Fawcett . Social etiquette is the core of this issue... not banning Glass nor being belligerent about it. 
+Damian Hoskin But how would you know? The iPhone is so creepy you can't even tell when someone is taking video. At least with Glass you can tell. 
+Damian Hoskin Because you're so damned important that people are all going around wasting battery power and storage space taking pictures and videos of you? Are you also afraid to be around gay men because they might hit on you? Or are you okay with them so long as they dress and act like normal men, and keep their gayness to themselves/at home/in private?
Point your phone phones lens at me for longer than 3 secs and we will be having a conversation that may end with your phone in your arse and your teeth scattered throughout the said premises.
+Damian Hoskin Lay a hand on me and I'll see you spend the next 6 years in jail for assault, mother fucker. Talk big all you like, THAT is still a crime. Wearing glass? Not so much.
+Damian Hoskin Right. So you are going to know when someone is looking at their tiny iphone screen pointed right at you and pretending they are looking at email that they are secretly filming you. Hell, it has probably happened thousands of times already! Want to see how creepy the iPhone is?

You can buy attachments to HIDE the fact you are sneakily filming someone. Yet THESE aren't being banned by the double-standard having douchebags. Now could you get the fuck over yourself?
+Anthony Fawcett the gay self persecution is getting real boring dude. It is my right to ask you not to video me so get over yourself and being gay +Anthony Fawcett . As a parent I am conscious of weirdos collecting content of my child. Is it not reasonable to not want some freak to video my kid? 
+Damian Hoskin I mean really, when you say shit like that are you actually thinking or are you just running your mouth? Do you KNOW what even just a conviction for violent assault can do to your life? Your job prospects? Do you have a wife and kids? Or a girlfriend you're serious about? How would they feel if you go to prison for it? Or what if you accidentally killed the person - it's easy to do, lose your balance, hit your head, brain haemorrhage, dead. How would you feel then? You really think that violence solves any problem here?  

You really think all of those consequences are worth it on the suspicion that someone might be taking a picture of you? 
This thread. This is why I love Google Plus so much. You don't get to enjoy things like this on shittyass facebook or stuntedfucked twitter. They are shit. G+ is God tier. 
+Damian Hoskin I can assure you, 'some freak' is videoing your kid accidentally every day. Protective is one thing, paranoid obsession is another. You're allowing your fear to dictate what others can do. 

Listen, you want to protect your kids, teach them useful skills. It wont be the guy with the visible camera snatching them. Teach them how to twist out of a grapple, how to stamp on a foot, how to scream for help. Teach them to keep a calm head when they do these things and to run in the right direction. 

But you know what would be really useful? If some nearby citizen with a camera to hand could snap a picture of the guy or the car when your kid gets snatched, like without even reaching for it, it's just there, right when it was needed. 

Technology is neutral, it is who uses it and how it is used that matters. 
+Anthony Fawcett Oh, he doesn't have a real fucking argument and he knows it. They all do. They are just lame ass haters. They either can't afford it, or are still recovering from not getting attention from the popular kids in highschool, so they fell for Microsoft's paid anti-glass campaign and hopped on board like the good followers they are. Thankfully it's hardly anyone. Just loud fuckers are loud. Even if there are like 100 real anti-glass people. 
First world problems... Ffs $1500 of entitlement never looked so embarrassing. This type of behavior will quickly ensure that mainstreaming is far away...
Apparently Kim Kardashian has them now and loves them so this thread is pointless. All the childish followers hating on them will run out and buy them now.
I am not above leaving a bad review for a place.  One that I personally experience....but, what you have done is abuse the review system.  The review system is not the place for you to bring your displeasure of a policy that you haven't even experienced.  Most who jumped on the 1 star band wagon have never been to this place.  

Now, if you as an individual or as a group wish to write a detailed blog of what happen and engage in a open dialogue about it there, by all means do so and you would be right in doing so.  Using the rating and reviews system as you have is not only a violation of TOS, it is simply the wrong course of action.

I applaud your wanting to educate others on this new technology...but in this instance you have given it a black eye in the process. 
+Scott Wilson Just because people are scared of something doesn't mean they're bigotted. It can very well lead to that...but this was all based on a PRIVACY concern. It will take time, and hopefully a few redesigns before people begin to accept GG. Otherwise let's not jump to conclusions. 
It is bullying, +David Kutcher so correct +Derek Ross thatyou and these overly intelligent technocrats with your eloquence and verbosity took it upon yourselves to hurt a buisness and by proxy all the people who rely on that buisness to feed their families because you feel marginalized and misunderstood.

That is the low road, the very lowest road you could have possibly taken. What about the servers and staff? Is it their fault, should their families suffer or feel the consequences of your indignation? You placed yourself and your feelings above everything and everyone so you could wear a computer strapped to your face whereever you want.

This is easily the most shameful and inconsiderate behavior I have ever heard of and the very reason the term glasshole exists and you should pull all of your damaging reviews down because it's the right thing to do.

Consider this, that shop owner is throwing themselves prostrate in front of you not because they give one red damn about the computer strapped to your face, but because they care about the employees who work for them whom your cyber bullying and actions have directly impacted. This isn't education, this is shameful forced contrition and if you can't see that your delusional and blinded by selfish self interest.

I hope you take them down, I have a lot of friends and followers who use glass but I will spend an inordinate amount of time ripping you people a new glasshole in the most public way I can until you recognize that your petty indignation is no excuse for the collateral damages you turn a blind eye to, and that there is no justification for what you have done...
+Scott Wilson I am far from a lame ass hater. Neither am I an "ignorantly biased type" that is here for you "to fuck with". I am merely describing some of the feelings and incidents that may arise from poor social etiquette associated with glass. I am not a glass hater but I do believe that some form of etiquette needs to be adhered to. +Anthony Fawcett I am glad you have dropped the gay analogy. Yes violence is not always the answer, but to many it is and ensuing violence in a restaurant is going to ruin everyones meal all because a simple rule wasn't adhered to in a private establishment.
+Damian Hoskin I am trying to make it painfully clear to you that you have a better chance of knowing that you are being video'd by a glass user than ANY other popular device. So unless your argument is you'd rather not know, and have it happen, and that's the entire problem, you don't have a leg to stand on. Glass is better in your world. 
+Scott Wilson I get what you are saying about being recorded. Glass is new and until many people that aren't tech savvy do not understand it's use and capabilities. In these early days incidents are going to arise. Is it not fair for a private business to try and avoid those incidents until Glass is mainstream and understood by the wider public? +Scott Wilson in your opinion was the restaurant right or wrong in the instance that kicked off this thread?
I find a lot of irony in the comments. I'm out and about today, but still reading them when I can. More later.
Irony is the wrong word, try blowback instead, it's a more accurate description...
+Aleister Crowley said:

"I won't go to any bars or restaurants that don't ban Glassholes. I don't want people to have the ability to record me without my knowledge and Glass is basically an announcement that says "I could be recording you and you wouldn't know." Someone holding a camera is obvious... "

This is the problem. You're attacking an overt piece of technology because you're concerned about covert usage. That's why your point doesn't hold any water. It's easier to covertly record on almost any other device, not even including specialty made covert devices like the one below, which is under $100.

+Robert Scoble proved this very effectively when he wore a covert recording device while demoing Glass. Everyone saw Glass. No one saw his hidden HD 1080P camera. 

That's the point. The privacy concerns about Glass are baseless, because they introduce NOTHING new to camera surveillance, are MORE obvious than other options, and do a TERRIBLE job at it given the ultra shallow lens hard constructed into Glass (2.28mm 2.4 f-stop, NO ZOOM). You couldn't pick a worse device for covert surveillance if you tried. Given all that, the objections to Glass are purely anti-tech seething, based purely on ignorance.
+Damian Hoskin They were wrong because they didn't understand what they were banning needlessly. That's just poor business. If you are going to alienate what is usually a higher income bracket userbase, you should probably know why. Instead they were fed lies by a hater, and acted on it brashly. 
+Aleister Crowley That's just silly. You absolutely would know. There's a bright and shiny red LED that screams "I'M RECORDING", if it's recording. =)
+Aleister Crowley One thing Google nails is customer service. Sometimes slowly, but they get there. I have a feeling the consumer version of Glass is going to have a friggin lighthouse beacon with built in killswitch running when it's shooting video. Right now, at least to me, it's pretty damn obvious when someone is filming, but they'll want to give the haters nothing to bitch about. 
I'm banning spoons because they make people fat. And Panera bread because they have spoons.
+Glenn Costello And we'll always have ignorant haters hating all new things just because they are stuck in the past, desperately trying to fuck over society by holding us back. 

so...actually contacting the restaurant and informing them was out of the question because...?

what gives you the right to endanger someones business because your friend was asked not to play with her new toy...?
After reading everything here, I'm not sure I'd really want one now. What's the point? Yeah sure it's great tech but damn. All the protests and work for one restaurant?

I'd like to see that kind of effort going towards an actual cause worthy of such support. Imagine what could really get done?

Instead you all get to wear Google glass at some restaurant. Big deal 
+P Koester this post has nothing to do with trying to wear Glass inside Feast. In fact, I mentioned I don't care what the outcome is if Glass is allowed or isn't allowed. I just want the restaurant owners to understand what they are banning and why they are making a policy. Blindly making rules about something you don't understand leads you down a very bad path. Yesterday Feast told Katy they were interested to know more. That's a win for me. They want to know more about Glass. That's great. Now if only the people in this thread had a chance to use Glass and actually understand it, this problem would eventually go away. That's where the whole entire problem lies. Only a small fraction of people have used Glass. Those that haven't used it assume the worst.
+Aaron Wood how in the world is 1 person leaving a 1 star review for a restaurant a thug? Bad reviews have been given to establishments ever since the first restaurant opened in the world. I wasn't aware an an opinion was grounds for being a thug. I guess that thought process is from the same people that think having a different opinions means your a troll.
+P Koester You know, I really love Glass, even though I don't have one. But, you bring up an excellent point. 
If this energy had been spend, say, ensuring better education, or better help for our veterans...

If I had Glass, I'd need the perscription model, as I need them to see anything (astigmatism). If a restaurant asked me to take them off, even after I attempted to communicate my need for glasses, or attempt to "educate" them, I'd simply find somewhere else to eat from then on. Sure, I might even leave a bad review afterward, but I'm not going to start a huge campaign about it.
+Derek Ross if your intention was to inform the restaurant owners about Glass...i ask again...why didn't you just contact them...?
+Derek Ross I assume nothing. But reading all this is why I said what I said.

Sure, I'm about as tech as they come. But honestly, I think we've lost a lot over technology. Everyone is face first in some device or not really paying attention to anything around them anymore. I think we lost a little bit of humanity staring into our little screens.

And It just seems like a lot of people are grumpy about something not that important.

Do we really communicate better now? 
+Damien Silver movie critics and food critics have jobs doing what they do best. What gives them the right to say something bad? Free speech.
+P Koester this is the nature if evolution, we lose some things and usually win much more. If you think about it most of what people are doing with their cellphones is connecting with other people just beyond time and space, having conversations like this one. I believe it's valuable and I would have never met any of you if it wasn't for tech. I don't believe in the nostalgic view of the past. The past is full of more violence, more ignorance, less civilization, less survival, less human rights, less tolerance, less communication, less transparency, the list goes on and on if you look beyond little peaks and into big tendencies.
When your posse shows up to bash said restaurant... then yes, e-thugs abound.
+Aaron Wood my posse? I didn't even suggest to leave 1 star reviews. Feel free to look at the OP and see who suggested to do that. It wasn't me. I did follow their suggestion though, I admitted that in my OP. I also mentioned that after I saw them say to +Katy Kasmai on Twitter that they were now interested to learn more about Glass, I removed my review as I figured that was the right thing to do.
Agree to disagree +Cecilia Abadie in respect to devices. Call it whatever you want to, I'm not being nostalgic. No need to assume or put words in my mouth.

Nothing has really changed. All you have to do is look around and see what is around you. And no, I'm not going to resort to insults.

It's actually more/less of all you've listed. I don't need some statistical analysis to see what is going on. All of what you mentioned lives and breathes right here on G+. It's in the schools, our children and adults. Sure we connect but do we really?

History repeats itself, we'll just be more technologically advanced about it 
The right thing to do would have not to have left a review in the first place. At least you went back and removed it.

You should have contacted the establishment and asked to educate them. Not digitally strong arm them into a situation where they had to relent on their policy or face an even lower rating from people that never entered their place of business. 
I think what a lot of people are missing here is that every business has the goal to satisfy ALL it's customers. We live in a society were everyone feels there needs and wants are more important than society as a whole. The restaurant did the right thing, and satisfied multiple customers over making one happy. She was not asked to take off glasses she needed to see clearly. She was asked to remove a piece of technology that made other's uncomfortable.
+John Voshell and what then should have happened was the restaurant should have said to her we don't understand why people are upset, but we're going to side with them this one time, will you please come back and state your case because we would like to know more about a product we're blindly banning.
+Derek Ross subtle distinction: movie critics and food critics actually go to the movie/restaurant and review it. They don't pervert a review system to promote an agenda,
+Derek Ross I'll be honest Mr.Ross. I don't agree with how this was handled. As I've read this article, and the string of comments I've read many different perspectives and opinions on this issue. I've read about many other situations similar to this one, and I've even been in that very same position. Myself and a few of my friends were in a local diner that didn't usually get a lot of business. Just a few old people who have lived very different lives and have very different mentalities. We were waiting on our food one day and we decided to pass the time with a little Magic the Gathering. I'm not to familiar with the game so I was being taught how to play. About 20 mins in one of the waiters came over and asked us politely if we would please put up the cards. When we asked why we were told that the seniors weren't comfortable with us playing the game. Pretty much they were old Folks who were taught that magic is satanic in church and when one of them recognized what we were playing they were more than likely disgusted. I was rather sore about it and I contested the issue. I said we were only playing to pass the time and that when the food arrived we would put them away. Before the server could say anything one of the Old Folks got up and (I quote) said: "He told ye ta geyt. We don't want yer devil lovin' garbage in this establismeant" It surprised the waiter and I was ready to knock the shit out of the old bastard. Instead we left with Corey (one of my aforementioned friends) gripping my shoulder to ward me off from doing anything. I was pissed....but I let it go. I don't eat there anymore as a result. But when I compare my own experience to your friend's I draw a few conclusions. 1. The server/restaurant more than likely didn't have an issue. Just like the people who were serving us, the restaurant more than likely was only trying to adhere to other customers complaints. If it were an established rule than it could be they've had problems with similar issues in the past or its just part of the owners principles. Either way if the other customers were okay with it then the Restaurant wouldn't have cared, even if it were against the owners wishes they wouldn't turn down business, especially if the rule was hurting them in the long run. 2. The old people that wanted us to leave partially mirrored the attitudes the other customers at your friend's restaurant must have had. They were nervous around something they didn't understand or non-tolerant of and resorted to wanting it removed from their environment, whether that meant they had to put Google Glass away or leave. I'm sure many others would make the same inferences as I had. When people misunderstand or are afraid of something they want it to go away and as seen in both examples the ones who catered to the majority (the restaurants) followed the trend with the interest of only the business at mind. I never agree with having to put anybody in the disposition to conform to something they don't like. But the steps taken here were uncalled for. Had your friend left her review just like I did then I really wouldn't care. But when you organize a controlled review process with the goal in mind to change the establishment's perspective on a PRODUCT or its use then I find egregious fault with it. This "campaign" puts people's jobs at perril all for the discussion of using Google Glass in a place of business. Others who've banned it's use will notice this incident and it may even make them change policy, but the potential backlash could be devestating. As biased as the media is they will more than likely spin this as some revenge scheme to disparage a business for disallowing a products use and pissing somebody off. And as many people as this article and post will reach I gaurentee you the "official" news outlets will have audiences that dwarf whatever numbers this article manages to reach. But more than anything this is misleading. When you review a restaurant you do so that gauges every aspect of its service, not for pushing an agenda. And the majority of people who probably don't care about this issue will see the restuarants low score thinking they earned that rating because of terrible service and quality and won't ever bother to check its reviews. Maybe the reviewers stated why the rated it so poorly....maybe not, but their driving business away for the sole purpose of google glass, and sending a message to other establishments that the same thing will happen to them if they don't conform, whether that message is intended or not. I know I'll be told that its for a bigger cause, that nobody should be "discriminated" against for using any product or personal porperty in public that others don't care for. But this isn't discrimination, especially when its a mere accessory, not something like perscription glasses that would be deemed a necessity that +David Kutcher aptly pointed out. Going through the comments I've read others' opinions on it and I very much disagree with the what happened. I didn't see any reason for her to have put away Google Glass or even be inconvenienced in the first place. For those who don't understand or are afraid it will take time before Google glass is accepted. With a few more redesigns, an extreme price cut, and the right marketing this thing will sell, and I want it to, but reading posts from fucking idiots like +Anthony Fawcett make the meaning of glasshole all the more apparent. He's just like that Old Man who didn't care to understand something he didn't like. He dismisses any argument he doesn't like and tries to discredit someone's intelligence for doing so. It's people like him that make it hard to encourage the widespread adoption of tech like GG when people think he represents the the views and attitude of the tech community. I can only pray that GG can make a comeback without needing to resort to stunts like this. And if the charge for such endeavors is being lead by people like him and +Scott Wilson then I know were fucked.
Now, besides the fact that they technically shouldn't have left the reviews without actually visiting the restaurant (as mentioned above; it's against Google's policy +Scott Wilson )... 

I think this is exactly how services such as Google Maps reviews are intended to be used. Just as a customer can express dislike towards an establishment for not offering Wi-Fi (or countless other conditionals, I chose Wi-Fi because it's probably most related), they can express dislike for not allowing Glass users. That's what these sites are for and, if nothing else, these bad reviews warned other Glass users and made it clear that this restaurant isn't a place they can go. I can go on Google Maps and leave a restaurant a 1 star review for not having Wi-Fi if I think it will push them to have Wi-Fi (I've done this before), and so can Glass users. I don't think that makes Glass users "Glassholes".

This is one of the biggest benefits of services like Maps reviews. Companies get quick and easy access to information regarding what they can do to please their customers. And if they please their customers, they'll get more business. That simple.
i still don't understand why the owners were never contacted directly...
+Glenn Costello thankfully the 300 positive reviews they've received in the past 24 hours are all legitimate, huh?
+Derek Ross so you concede the point it's illegitimate to post reviews without actually visiting? That's fine.
+Glenn Costello my point is illegitimate reviews are still being posted. My review has long since been removed, for about 24 hours or so. Are all of these other fake reviews going to be removed too?
+Ethan Bissette Wonderful comment...I must go mow the grass and would like to come back to your comment later, but I just don't have time right now.
Omg +Derek Ross are you 12...?

other people are doing it so it's alright...?

+Derek Ross I don't know I don't run the website, if not I guess it's yet another victory for cyber heroes using modern protest techniques.
I haven't read anything that displays so much arrogance and childishness in quite a long time. 
Reason #1 for the bad publicity: People wearing the stupid things look like dorks.

Reason #2 Glassholes who can't live without their beloved toy long enough to eat a goddamn meal.

Reason #3 Acting like spoiled children when politely asked by places like restaurants to remove them.

Reason #4 Perpetuating the "glasshole" stereotype by unfairly trashing a place of business because they ask you not to wear them on their property.

I guess anyone rich enough to drop $1500.00 on these toys is bound to be a jerk.
If a business relies solely on the star ratings on Google maps to stay alive, then they are doing something wrong. 
I was going to give this post one star, but too much entertainment given.

1.5 stars.
And, ummm... It isn't "power to the people" when those people are an exclusive club.....
+Ethan Bissette I agreed almost completely with you until you attacked me directly. You misrepresented my perspective 180 degrees. You cast me as the intolerant one here when all I want is each and every one of us to be free to express ourselves in the way that we are without being harassed and abused and assaulted for the difference. It isn't me that doesn't understand here. I'm a transhumanist. Glass to me is the next step in my personal technical evolution. If you think of it as just a device, then it is you who do not understand.

As to leaving reviews - I support it. If you think a more peaceful individual approach is going to work then you haven't been paying attention because all of that has been tried for years. 1 person leaving 1 bad review will accomplish nothing. HAS accomplished nothing. 1 voice is easy to ignore, to drown out. 1 customer is easy to dismiss. And so you lose another place to eat at. Society segregates itself into businesses and people who tolerate Glass and those that don't and since the pressure is stronger with the majority, that division gets more and more restrictive.

So while abusing the review process for protest is not what they were intended for, nor were streets intended for protest marches, parks for sit-ins, sidewalk for picketting .

And yes, maybe the restaurant and staff are harmed by this protest, and that's sad but without protest, the vocal fearful and ugly retrogrades will win. By the time I can implant an augmented display surface over my eye socket, it will be illegal to do so.

I'm sorry that you quietly walked away. In doing so you acquiesced and agreed that it is acceptable for one group of people to dictate where others can eat. You showed them that they can get away with it, and they will be even more ready to do so in future. You contributed to them thinking they have a right to tell you to get the fuck out. You made the problem worse, not better, all to avoid conflict.

+Stephen Hall I see your point. But I personally feel that its a detriment to use it in that fashion as millions of other users who aren't possibly as tech savvy or just disinterested won't care to understand why the restaurant received such low scores. If they knew why the majority of people wouldn't care. Besides I personally want Google Glass to earn its market share. It's a good idea but in its current state there's no way you can justify a $1500 price tag as a mainstream product (unless you have the $$$). I know what market its geared towards and I know it will take some time for the rest of the world to ease up to it, and if people understand that then they need to stop complaining about "discrimination" when they know people are misinformed or not ready for it. 
The smugness with which the entitled gang continues to reach, desperately to justify these actions disgusts me. If you're that myopic, stubborn and unable to see your misguided thinking, then frankly, I hope your "education" includes a smackdown from Glass, revocation of associated Google accounts (reviews) and a legal spanking. You are an embarrassment and mockery to the community and it's time you grow up. 
+Anthony Fawcett This is good. I'm glad you responded but let me be the first to offer you my apologies. I'm sure you've already ascertained as much but I'm rather quick to anger. However, as angry as I get I know when I've over stepped my bounds. Vulgarity in an arena of discussion and debate will help the least in any argument so I apologize. Now returning to the subject; you've established yourself as a Transhumanist; one who adheres to a philosophy of improving the human condition with the implementation of technology into one's own physiology. In short you accept the idea of a real life cyborg where others would feign over it due to religious or cultural views. I personally don't have a problem with it. Hell I think its actually cool, though I have my own doubt's about doing it, I woudn't deny somebody the chance if they had the opportunity just as I wouldn't harass somebody over their sexual orientation. It's your life to live and as long as your not harming others I couldn't care less. Here's where I disagree with you. Where you believe Glass to be an evolution compounding on the idea of Transhumanism I see it as a half baked product. Its current implementation leaves much room for improvement and until we've reached a point where humans are physically merging with technology I can hardly see this as a step towards blurring the line between humans and tech. This is why I don't support the way the review system has been abused. In my eyes there is nothing to be achieved, it's the same reason I walked out of the restaurant. I'm not going to fight for the "freedom" to play a game in some dingy old diner when I already have the right to do so, and can in a thousand other places. The technology hasn't even reached a point to where we can have this kind of discussion. The day I see controversy over a cybernetic implant, or bionic prosthetic as a lifestyle choice, I know what side I'm taking....yours. Until then this incident is nothing more than a cheap tactic to create buzz over a product that people shouldn't even care about until it's ready. 
+Scott Beamer - it sure does sound like they are with all the people talking about how leaving a few one stars will destroy their business. 
And this is something that you are proud of? 
+Scott Beamer 
"Reason #1 for the bad publicity: People wearing the stupid things look like dorks."

You should just be honest and admit that's your only reason, and really the only reason the tiny fringe group of nutballs that hate glass do so. Because of their inability to get over being unpopular in high school. You straight up fabricated the rest of  your "reasons" to pad your list like ever other douchebag that hates glass. 
Ultimately, I believe every good christian  wants the same thing. They want the public to understand what jesus can do. Sadly, we've had to rely on the media to spread the news and we all know how biased the media is, pushing their own agendas.
The food is terrible anyway you didn't miss much. Across the street is The Smith which also asked me to take Glass off. I laughed in the bartenders face and left. 
+Scott Beamer Why should anybody have to just because a tenth of a percent of us have serious mental issues and complain about things that aren't real problems?
+Scott Wilson For the same reason restaurants ask you to remove your hat.  For the same reason some restaurants require a jacket and tie.

Not to mention, you won't look like a dork.
+Scott Beamer But it's not the same thing. And it doesn't matter. We can just leave the restaurant, give them the bad review they deserve, and eat at a restaurant that hasn't fell victim to the ranting of nutballs. And in this case the restaurant figured out they had been manipulated by nuts and invited Katy back to teach them reality. The system worked. The idiots lost. 
+Tim S In this case the priviledge of the few lost thankfully. The handful of anti-glass nutballs trying to ruin things for all of us lost. 
This "protest" just made glassholes live up to their name.

Reviewing a restaurant you've never been to is NOT cool.
+Scott Beamer But it worked. The evil assholes with mental problems that represent less than 1 percent of society, afraid of a cellphone you wear on your head, acting like some sort of self-appointless asshole style police LOST. Because they were wrong. And we need to work together as a society to stop those fucking assholes from holding back society. American won because of those reviews. The consumer won. We can't let ourselves be held hostage by morons with mental and image problems. 
+Scott Beamer You can tell the evil ones because they try to tell other people how to live. They are so full of themselves they honestly think people care about them, and their opinions. They honestly think they matter.
+Scott Wilson why you trying so hard boo boo? I know you say you just happened to pick that side to argue but you come off as a person that's more trying to convince themselves than others. I will buy glass later or another version of a similar product but I'll also be considerate with it just like my phone and not have it out at all times. This is petty and indicative of the baseless self entitlement our great country is oozing out of every pore.
+Tim S It would be disrespectful if I didn't give it my all. You all deserve potent content. 
+Tim S Glass is meant to be worn at all times. If you're taking it off and putting it back on multiple times a day then you might as well just keep pulling that phone out throughout the day instead. One of the features of Glass is to keep your head up and not always down.
+Derek Ross Exactly. It was designed to be "life's heads-up display". Which is really cool. I just wish I needed that. I really don't. 
The whole "Glass debate" being waged by paid Microsoft astroturfers, and the people dumb enough to buy into their hateful nonsense can be summed up really easily. You've got a fringe group of motivated douchebags that think they can act as some sort of public homeowners association. The same assholes that tell you that you can't put a basketball hoop in your own driveway are now trying to dictate what you can wear in public. The same pieces of shit that got electronic cigarettes banned because they "look" dangerous. They don't care that e-cigs aren't dangerous. Just like they don't care that glass is less invasive than an iPhone. They think by the sheer power of their own assholishness, they can change reality to fit their warped vision of it. 
+Scott Wilson Right.  Glassholes are the ones full of themselves.  Google has even asked them not to behave this way and yet they continue to do so.  

Speaking of Google, from what I understand, posting 1-star reviews of a place you've not been to, is against their TOS.
It must be true. Look at how devastatingly effective the Scroogled campaign has been!  Surface, Zune... nothing can stop the evil Microsoft juggernaut.  Omg the lulz
+Scott Beamer And you can try to change the subject all you want, and you can try to deflect and FUD everything up, but at the end of the day, Glass is harmless. It's less invasive than a smartphone. And anybody that wants them banned because of their own ignorance is a fucking asshole. 
Made my reservation at Feast by the way. I'll be sure to post a review!
Tinfoil hat time.. I'm out.. I like Google products but y'all got too much Google juice running down your chins to talk with. All this passion over this I wonder how many of you pay attention to actual civil rights abuses... 
+Glenn Costello I'm sure real reviews are hard to find now. They have over 400 fake reviews now - all 5 stars.
+Tim S It starts with telling you what products you can use. Then it's what books you can read. Then it's what food you can eat. We've already seen NYC ban a harmless smoking alternative, and types of food. Because THEY think for you better than you think for yourself apparently. It has to stop. 
+Derek Ross That's really telling. Tens of millions of people read the story about this and only 400 asshole anti-glass folks gave them a fake review. That's not even 10,000th of one percent. And they have the nerve to pretend they are speaking for the majority. 
+Scott Wilson Ahh, the Slippery Slope Fallacy. I'll ad that to your rather long list.

U mad, bro? U seem mad.
+Matthew Robinson If you need to pretend I'm mad to feel better about your sad bias, that's fine with me. Concoct any fantasy you want. You've had plenty of practice. 
+Matthew Robinson You have ad hominen attacks. Just like the anti-glass folks. Nothing of any actual substance. Just a predatory need to hate on something different rather than admit you don't understand it. 
+Scott Wilson Lrn2fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is when you dismiss someone's argument or assertion on personal grounds, i.e. Ron Paul is a nutjob, and therefore his positions on foreign policy and abortion are invalid. When you do it the other way around, i.e. Ron Paul thinks we should quit the UN and stop all foreign aid to all nations, and he thinks we should let redneck states outlaw abortions again, and therefore, he's a nutjob... that's just throwing a good, old fashioned insult into a conversation.

Try and have some idea what the fallacy is before you accuse someone of being guilty of it.

Can you even read, man? I don't hate on Glass. I am disappointed by it. I was all over that shit when it was coming out, and even for a while after it did. But because no one has it, and no one wants it, no one has done anything useful with it, it's a joke now. It's just a failed product, and I bear it no ill will whatsoever.

This conversation is about the douchebags who think that they have some right to wear the stupid thing whenever and wherever they please. They don't. It's about fuckwits who think that it's appropriate to violate the expressly written guidelines of Google by posting reviews of an establishment they've never visited. It has also become about hilariously butthurt wanna-be's who think there is some conspiracy at work trying to keep the douchegoggles down, or that people are somehow being persecuted when businesses comply with the wishes of their clientele.
+Matthew Robinson Your need to tell lies and downplay how successful Glass has been tells us everything we need to know about you. Doctors and Firemen are using them to save lives. This conversation is about the losers that only feel good about themselves when they are ripping other people apart. Like you've put on display in this thread. Proving my point. 
+Scott Wilson Wait, you had a point? I must have missed it.

And, yes, a product that a year after its release is still overpriced by about an order of magnitude even though it is still in beta testing - that's a huge success! How many units are even out there? I'll bet its fewer than Galaxy Gear shipped its first week.

I changed my mind. You're not hilarious. You're sad.
+Matthew Robinson And you attack further, proving my point even more. Intentionally mischaracterizing the product, the explorer program, and twisting reality because of your pathetic need to salvage something resembling "I'm right see" from your utter nonsense. Just another pathetic hater. Hating on the different people. In the depths of your inability to see past the end of your own nose. 
+Ward A I just read +Scott Wilson's comments a little bit ago and immediately said to myself, I'm going to sit right down and tell this motherfucker exactly how i eat my motherfucking steel cut oatz.

>I make a gigantic fucking batch every four days. When im done i have an enormous bowl of steel cut oatz and at this point i generally take the first few feet of my cock out of my pants and fap because the sight is beautiful.

>Every morning i take a goodly portion of that fucking pond of glory and i pour vanilla fucking soymilk in the fucking bowl with the fucking oatz and i put them in the microwave where i picture them fucking while they heat up.

>I've now got a bowl of hot oatz and an infallibly rigid dick but i am not done motherfucker and it is not yet time to eat.

>I reach around behind me and grab my nuts from the cupboard and sprinkle a bunch of walnuts into the fucking bowl. I grab my raisins and i shake my raisins into that fucking bowl, i grab my prunes and i lay my prunes into that fucking bowl, and i grab my fucking naked banana and i layer it into that fucking bowl. At this point i collapse onto the floor and fuck a new hole into the hardwood of my kitchen because i just can't fucking stand my gorgeous fucking oatz, then i stand up and i eat that fucking bowl, the whole fucking thing including the bowl itself, without any utensils and then i go throw myself at the sex doll i have dressed up like the quaker oatz guy and i literally fuck it until my neighbors call the cops.
Ward A
This whole protest is stupid. 
What was won? Feast has said that if enough of their customers complain about Google Glass being used in their restaurant, their policy will stand. As private business owners, that's THEIR choice, just as it's your choice not to eat there but people posting bad reviews is just tacky and immature.
+Melissa E. No, that's normal when a place has bad service. Caving to delusional nutballs is bad service. 
At some point it the adult children in the east village will grow up and it won't be trendy to hate on all things Google anymore. 
+Nic Ciccolini The comments in that story really bring home how much bullshit that whole story is. 116 people were evicted. 116 people. That's what morons have been complaining about. 0.0001 percent of the population couldn't pay a scheduled 1 percent increase in rent. That's why those morons are protesting. 
Ward A
Google gave, the general area that I live in, a fuck load of money. There is gentrification happening in SoMa near my job... but, meh. That area is shit. It needs a facelift.

As far as Oakland is concerned... people are fleeing The City since it's so fucking expensive. I hope my rent doesn't go up. Keep those SF people across the bridge. 
Add a comment...