Comment by cft
5 years ago
The solution is for the legitimate sites that are driven out of business by Google AI to sue Google for tortuous interference and libel.
5 years ago
The solution is for the legitimate sites that are driven out of business by Google AI to sue Google for tortuous interference and libel.
This helps one group and hurts another. If Google is liable for blocking potential malware and phishing pages, they'll either stop blocking it, or adjust their algorithm to strongly err on the side of allowing phishing sites.
Businesses become safer, but more regular people will get phished.
>or adjust their algorithm to strongly err on the side of allowing phishing sites.
It'a not the role of Google to disallow phishing sites (as a browser) just like it's not the role of the ISP.
Make it hookable so people can chose their own phising protection service.
People wouldn't know or care which to pick. They would see the pop-up asking to select a phishing protection provider, would get confused and angry and think "where do I click to get past this pop-up, I want to go on Facebook and this stupid computer is nagging me with stuff again!"
Phishing protection is mostly needed for people who have no clear concept of phishing or technicalities. They just want to do things on the internet, like social media, they don't care about things behind the scenes, that's boring uncool nerd stuff.
And then they will choose the same block list and sites will have the same problem.
5 replies →
The problem isn't the company that blocked it. The problem is the company that reported that there was a problem when there wasn't. In this case it sounds like Google is both companies.