For reference, this was the paragraph (the business in question is an apartment complex I was renting at):
>Their "Courtesy Patrol" service is useless. I tried this service every night for a week but it made no difference; the noise still continued on that night and the following nights. Also, the people at the service told me that it takes them an hour to send someone over after you call them. So if you ever have a reason to call this service, you better be prepared that your problem won't get solved for at least an hour after you call.
How long was the review? It might just be that reducing the length/number of clauses helped. Honestly, if I was naively writing a restaurant review filter, length would be in there; if you look at TripAdvisor or similar, as reviews get longer the probability of the reviewer being a weird crank approaches one.
The length may have been a factor, but it definitely wasn't the only factor. When I eventually narrowed it down to those two paragraphs being the only difference, the attempt with the first paragraph in its original form and the attempt with that paragraph sanitized of profanity were basically the same length.
I'm here for a review, not an essay. I think Google was probably doing the right thing (as in, most useful for their users) with your review. Stick to a small number of quick, highly informative sentences, not lengthy speculation and opinion.
Google has a style guide for documentation that suggests that people do not include certain kinds of words. This does not imply that users posting content with these words will trigger policy violations.
Beware of Google employees' agenda on language [1]. Something like "the restaurant service was insanely fast" can trigger a shadow banning.
[1] https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation