'Rearview Reviews' (or some such name) might be a web site based on user-contributed reviews, but almost all content is highly positive, even if it means departing from the realm of fact.

So often, people write reviews of an item, and other people read these reviews, not only in the hope of being guided in a future purchase, but also for purposes of reassurance if they already own said item. It's not nice to read xxx vs yyy comparisons that point out that someone else's yyy is far better than your xxx, especially as you're completely unable to discern whether what you've got on your hands is any good or not (if you knew, you wouldn't have to spend all this time lapping up other people's opinions).

A typical rearview review might start with a few factual comparisons, metrics and evaluations, but will progress into exaggerations, and as the review matures, you soon discover that this xxx you own or lust after is none other than the holy grail, the ark of the covenant and the only thing that will save the universe because it evidently created it in the first place. Or at least, according to all the contributing reviewers.

Then, in 50 years, the technosocial archaeologists won't be able to discern the wood from the trees, and all sorts of fairly naff items of today will fetch ludicrous 'cult status' followings and consequent inflated prices.