The way I see it, some people are too comfortable with giving their opinions while hidden behind the anonymity of cyberspace. I have read some nearly libelous statements on social media and on different forums. The posters of these statements almost never back them up with any facts. Here's an example: " I would never buy a hamburger at that place." That's a pretty condemning statement against a business. I would expect the poster to elaborate a bit. Why wouldn't you buy a burger there? Did you have a bad experience? What was it? Did you hear something bad about the place? Who did you hear it from? What did you hear? If you were having the conversation face to face with me, I would be asking your these questions myself. I would know in a second whether or not your opinion was valid to me. But since your are anonymously posting on the Internet, I can't make a good opinion about the validity of your opinion. For that reason, I don't trust positive or negative opinions from the Internet. If I am looking at reviews, for example, I disregard the wonderful ones and the horrible ones. I am more interested in how many "just okay" reviews there are. I am more comfortable with something that has 10% wonderful, 10% negative, and 80% "just okay" than I am with anything where the minority are "just okays". Why? I think that the "just okays" are most often the most credible sounding. I think some of the wonderful reviews are planted. I think some of the negative ones are, also. Furthermore, I think some people give negative reviews because they are very negative people to begin with. I believe that their own miserable attitudes inadvertently cause their own unhappiness in situations.