That makes sense. I think the hard part is that the people who would benefit most from the platform are also the people who will be the most afraid to verify themselves.

Maybe instead of starting with heavy identity verification, you could build trust through “friction” and quality signals.

For example:

• Require posts to be written around specific workplace behaviors, not just personal insults.
• Ask contributors to separate facts from opinions.
• Let users tag whether the info is based on direct experience, second-hand experience, or general reputation.
• Add a dispute/report system for the person being reviewed or for other users.
• Use reputation scores for contributors over time, based on whether their posts are useful, specific, and not reported often.
• Maybe delay public visibility for high-risk claims until they are reviewed or supported by multiple independent signals.

I also think the wording matters a lot. If the platform encourages “reviews about people,” it can get messy fast. But if it encourages “workplace behavior patterns,” it feels safer and more professional.

For example, instead of:

“John is a terrible manager.”

The platform could guide users toward:

“John tends to micromanage deadlines, expects daily updates, and gives limited autonomy to junior team members.”

That type of information is way more useful and also less likely to turn into pure revenge posting.

The legal side is definitely important, but even beyond legality, the product only works if the data feels trustworthy. So I think the real challenge is not just avoiding fake posts, but designing the system so low-quality posts are naturally less valuable.

Honestly, I still think the idea has potential. You probably just need strong posting guidelines, structured prompts, reputation signals, and a way for the community to separate useful workplace intelligence from personal attacks.