Why just the US?

...At first Horowitz thought there may be a tie to some of the bad English some of here overseas members contribute. There are a lot of people from India who enjoy the community and get to use their second language - but could be seen as machine writing or poor content. But the content that was dropped included well written reviews.
Prior to the changes, DaniWeb ranked number one for "Android tablets" with this page of very persoanlized insights in to the Google products. If you look at the page it is filled with "personal experiences with each of the products, not just spitting out manufacturing specs".
And there are thousands of such examples of DaniWeb pages dropped in the SERPs. That search term had 6500 SERP impressions/day resulting in 500 clicks/day for her site, Horowitz explained. "Now we are on page 2 of the SERPS and lucky to get a few clicks."
Davey Winder, who wrote the review for DaniWeb followed it up with some interesting points about what he sees happening. "DaniWeb is about as far away from a content farm as you could imagine. We are a community discussion and support forum stuffed full of original, in-depth, helpful advice and editorial. DaniWeb itself employs no underhand black hat SEO techniques, it doesn't even meddle in the grey hat stuff. A team of volunteer moderators across continents works around the clock to ensure that any spam, and all forums and websites which allow user contributed content will attract spam, is deleted as soon as it is spotted. The same hard line applies to duplicate content for which we have a zero-tolerance policy. The trouble is that DaniWeb cannot stop others from copying our answers, editorial and claim that content as its own - yet as the original source of this material we would appear to be getting punished as hard as those who steal our words.
One thing cannot be denied, and that is with this algorithm update Google is seriously hurting genuine producers of useful original content while at the same time giving third party content publishers a ranking boost. How that is meant to improve the quality of search is, frankly, beyond me. So, Matt Cutts and Google, if you are reading this maybe you would like to comment as to why innocent providers of high quality original content are being treated so badly? Maybe you could let us know why sites that copy original content are now ranking higher than the sites from which they stole those posts?"