Shared publicly  - 
 
Russell is right™

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106631699076927387965/posts/BUtRRm2jGmV

Treating a business unfairly because you think it treated you unfairly is the sort of shit I see in my kid's nursery school.
 
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: http://goo.gl/IXysFU

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 (http://goo.gl/WNbMJX) 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.
62
4
Daves Williams's profile photoSimone “s1m0n3X27” Scarano's profile photoMiguel Hernandez's profile photoDarrell Ames's profile photo
30 comments
 
Ross is wrong. This lack of acceptable compromise by some Glass explorers is the reason government officials are getting more and more into the discussion before Glass is even commercially available. 

Keep this up and it will be legislated into uselessness.
 
Regardless of the right and wrong I think the place to tell Derek an opinion is on his actual post. If you look at it he has lots of negative opinion as well as positive and is obviously reading it. 
The reshares with negative commentary strike me as being not too far removed from the behaviour Derek is being criticized for. 
I'm not saying that people can't reshare and comment however they see fit but it would seem more helpful to tell the person your opinion if you disagree or agree and have the debate there. Or even reshare and  refer people to the original post to comment. 
 
+Steve McCartney this is getting deeper and deeper. Is anyone reaching out to Derek instead of resharing his post and criticizing him? No. I'm disappointed.
 
Good job, I think people need to learn to use the voice we've got. She did nothing wrong and using social media to express how you or your friends were treated is what it's about. Wear glass proudly.
 
This just seems like Android community politics.
 
I don't know. I'm not clearly for or against this yet. Rather than knee-jerk about it, seems like something to think about. I see the point about the unfairness of "reviewing" a place into which you've never set foot, but then I also see the point of standing up for the ability to use a simple tool like Google Glass. 

It just doesn't seem as clear cut and easy as this post makes it sound. The original poster was certainly within their rights to review the hell out of the restaurant and tell the story. I would have. That's the right of someone who has had such an experience. And the restaurant has the right to comment on that review. What others do after that review seems beyond the control of the original poster.

Personally, I would visit a restaurant that refused service to Google Glass wearers so long as they also refused to allow cell phones, tablets, or computers, didn't have televisions on the wall, and made dining about dining instead of everything we crap it up with. That's a restaurant I might return to if the food was great. I'd review that with as many stars as I could and others, even if they had never been in the place, might jump on the review site to five-star the very idea of it.

Would that be okay? I don't know. I'm going to think about it some more and keep my knee still. 
 
Sorry but I highly disagree with giving a business a 1 star review just because they don't allow Google Glass especially if you haven't even been there to experience the rest of what they have to offer
 
There are currently 142 comments on Derek's post, with a large amount bringing up the same criticism of the way this was done. That's compared to 40 reshares, which may or may not be critical of the actions.

Either way, there's nothing wrong with having a discussion outside of Derek's post. 
 
Just looked at the reviews and there are just as many people posting 5 star reviews to "balance it out". The makes the end user experience for people, who just want to know if the place is good or not, horrible. Sorry +Derek Ross but this is a failed tactic and I hope other people don't start using Google Maps Reviews for the "Battleground"
 
+Jeff McIntire If you ain't helping fix the problem. You are part of the problem. And the way Ross handled this is clearly a problem. So Jeff is team Ross. Yay! LOL
 
+Michael Gomez I'm not on either "team" - no amount of reasoning can force me to take sides in the matter. Frankly it's insulting and rather nasty to label me as taking sides simply because I choose to follow the discussion rather than arguing for either side. I respect both +Russell Holly and +Derek Ross, and I don't want to alienate either one.
 
+Jeff McIntire You are a wierdo for your reply. Saying I'm insulting and nasty. Sheesh. A normal person would have been easy for them to tell I was just joking. Gosh! Why so sensitive dude? The heck is wrong with you?..........Matter fact never mind.
 
I'm struggling to define any of these actions - the restaurant's request, Derek + Co's protest, or Phil's post - as "unfair"... or of any exceptional value to their communities outside of each one contributing to freedom of speech and expression.

And I have no problem with that, in all three cases (or your desire to choose sides... though that's certainly more pointless than any action here).
 
Don't you guys say all the time to vote with your wallet and tell others? I'm wondering why this is any different...
 
I'm glad that so many Glass users are also seeing how bullshitty and childish this is. At least there's still a glimmer of hope for the device and it's reputation. 
 
I applaud Chipotle's move to ban guns in their restaurants. However, I also support gun enthusiasts ability to express their opposition to the policy, including negatively rating Chipotle if they desire. This is no different. Everyone has the right to decide what's important to them and judge businesses accordingly.

What if a restaurant refused to serve gay people. Would a gay person be castigated for giving a negative review of the establishment even though they've "never set foot in the place"? My guess is the reaction would be a little different in that situation.
 
+Scott Johnson see and i disagree whole heartedly with Chipotle's decision but I'm not gonna go give a 1 star review....I just won't go there anymore

As for the gay suggestion: If a restaurant told me to leave because I'm straight I wouldn't have other straight people go out and give them a 1 star review....sorry but your argument doesn't make sense
 
+Mike Simpkins How is it different than protesting in front of the building? Are protesters asked if they've "set foot in the establishment" before they are allowed to stand outside with a sign?

If a person is reading reviews of this restaurant and sees a negative review stating what they believe are petty reasons they will disregard it. I do it all the time with app reviews. What's important to one person is unimportant to others.

The only problem I see is if the negative reviews lied about the circumstances or reasoning behind the rating.
 
+Scott Johnson first off I don't think standing outside is different both are crappy IMHO. The problem with this is that reviews should be based on one persons experience not countless others who haven't even been there because of that 1 person. If people disagree with their decision just don't go there or if you're on the other side of it go out of your way to go there. Don't just leave 1 or 5 star reviews because of someone else's experience. It skews the data for the bad. 
 
Anyone else think google glass is douchy?
 
+Scott Johnson the gay analogy is flawed. You don't choose to be gay. Gay isn't a toy you bought to play with. Gay can't be put away at the dinner table.

You see where I'm going with this? Glass is a toy. It is. The original encounter should have gone like this.

"Excuse me, miss, we're going to have to ask you to remove your glass because another customer has complained"
"Oh certainly. Sorry to cause a fuss"

But it didn't. They resorted to rounding up a pack of friends to go on an online defamation spree just because they were too self entitled to respect the businesses rules. They had every right to ask her to remove them. Any normal person would have just complied instead of going out of their way to make themselves look victimised for the sake of being allowed to wear their $1500 toy at the table.

Glasshole through and through. 

For the record, and everyone should be aware of this, +Derek Ross is just a messenger. Yes he was involved but he's not the main proponent of this incident. +Katy kasmai is the Glasshole.

Edit: I'll fix that tag later. G+ is bugging. 
 
+Joshua Allan-Sloper correct. I did not orchestrate anything. Someone suggested on Katy's post to give one star reviews. Myself and others listened to him, at the time it seemed like a good idea, now I think differently. Anyways, I made this post to help spread the word. It wasn't some grandmaster scheme. It was people making reviews on their own. I randomly made a post last night after Katy posted on Twitter about the outcome.
 
The company is free to ban glass. The customers and potential customers are free to complain, via review or other means. People are free to disagree with the tactic. I am free to disagree with them.

I just cannot understand how people view online reviews as somehow fundamentally different than other forms of expression. They aren't.
Add a comment...