This certainly is an interesting topic - I have to come down on the side of the reviewer over the restaurant, especially if it’s factual. In this day and age a restaurant is certainly a competitive market and opening a ‘poor’ establishment is unforgivable - The alternative is too easy to switch to, especially if it’s not just one mistake but a poorly conceived operation with little thought given to the expectations of the customer - Aaaaand especially in a major city where other places will provide that exceptional value and it’s not good enough to open and expect concessions from customers. I’m also sure they’d overly-milk positive reviews too.
This example in particular is an absolute character assassination of a place…
Existentially, the entire operation is woeful and rightly deserves being held to account - If not for other customers to prevent a ruined night. Ultimately anyone can review a restaurant these days and distribute it pretty far and wide - This means that any proprietor has to be on their game, do their homework, prepare a slick operation and execute it well.
I also think most readers can take a review with a pinch of salt and see through reviewers who are just snobby, high maintenance and unfair. There have been reviews which have been beautifully countered with responses, in particular the review of Betty’s charging money for a hot water and lemon slice (£1.50) which prompted a furious review and indeed other reviewers actually stuck up for Betty’s so the review as a tool is not a one-sided affair.
The end of something like trip advisor or other site is to achieve a crowd consensus and eliminate the overly zealous 1 star and 19 star reviews (many of which are actually submitted by the restaurants themselves). I’d certainly much rather live in a market where all of these reviews exist as it greatly improves the overall standard.