I'm with IslandLizard on this. I don't think this thread is one that bashes the businesses. There have been a few bashing threads before, but this isn't one of them. This is a civil discussion by people who have serious misgivings about a product with significant quality and safety issues. And by one individual who was seriously injured. Covering up those dangers can be a trap to an unwary buyer, and I think as a community we have an obligation to discuss this.
The vendors, in filtering the negative posts, are not doing a service to their customers. It becomes like the
Potemkin Village, where only the positive aspects are shown in order to skew opinion to the favorable side. We are not stupid. We see through this. All it takes is a quick Google search for "glass Big Mouth Bubbler" and many questionable discussions (including this thread) will show up.
The only logical reason I can think of to filter negative reviews is for a defense to a potential products liability claim. A vendor being on notice that a product can or does cause harm can give an injured plaintiff a stronger argument. In a case of negligence and liability for harm, one of the elements to bring a successful action is to show that the defendant had "foreseeability." In other words, the vendor was on notice that the product has dangers that arise from the product's intended use. Even so, by not posting doesn't mean the review wasn't received by the vendor. They were "on notice," whether they published the review or not.
It's a double-edged sword: Do you inform the public and risk becoming a lightning rod for litigation? Or not tell the public and stand by as more people get hurt?
There are some products that are simply too hazardous to sell to consumers. We've seen some in the past: Jarts, electric hotdog cookers, the Miniboggan, Ford Pinto, etc. Serious thought needs to be given as to whether the glass BMB should be kept on the market.