@Bill
Fair enough, I probably haven't explained my main issue was how it was presented. I don't need them them berate but that was a - I hope you would agree -- bit fluffy in terms of interview.

I think it should be covered, a lot of the "look out for x scam" articles on here have ereally protected me as a player.

I'm not arguing we shouldn't talk about things we don't like or disagree with, (and I can see how it may have come across that way, for that inelegance, I apologize) but I disliked the way in which it was presented, Lisa P. posted later that it's a misconception that this feature was designed to show just positive things, but it's name, and branding make that jump pretty easy.

As for the tacit endorsement/immaturity, I was actually thinking of for example - hotel parking lots where they always post "Not responsible for broken into vehicles" there are actually a lot of cases where they are responsible, just claiming a right doesn't establish it, which is also a little off -point here, but in relation to that being the ONLY critical part of the piece or opposing view point it didn't seem like enough.