Self censorship requires a threat or risk of detriment if the party doesn't self censor, right? Where is that here?

What Radix does has no impact on Google, and I don't see how Google would be incentivized to pressure Radix. So I don't see how to make the leap blaming Google for Radix's incompetence. Yes, Google should recognize the risk of this happening, but they'd have to balance that against the rewards (or at least what they consider rewards)

> But Google was at fault for not correcting their blacklist.

If all it takes to be taken from the blacklist was to temporarily delete the NS record - the list would be useless against malware.

Google doesn't sell their list to you. They give it to you for free. Using their list costs them money. Pumping up numbers gains them nothing but the headache of PR issues when they get a false positive.

Spyware filters used to boast about how many domains they filter out because they wanted you to buy their filters instead of someone else's. By the time they hit a false positive, they've already sold a year's subscription to that customer.

The incentives are different.

Google wants you to use it. If it blacklists excess domains that hold legitimate sites, their product gets worse. If they blacklist illegitimate sites, their product gets better.

Nobody sees Google's numbers except Google... in other words, the numbers are not a sales tool for Google like they are for anti-virus/blocking companies. So, there's no reason for Google to pump up their numbers, it would just be extra work to make their product worse which wouldn't make sense.

Nothing, but they haven't done it so far, and they don't really have any incentive to do so.

It doesn't really matter that it's Google. It could have been Microsoft, or PAN, or McAfee or some fly-by-night vendor. The problem was Radix taking the list as iron-clad truth and disabling the domain without any notification or way to resolve the issue.

How is any kind of antivirus or threat detection software supposed to operate on this standard?

Libel suits can be financially catastrophic, so even a tiny false positive rate could present risk that disincentivizes producing such software at all.

And a threat detection mechanism that has a 0.0% false positive rate is conservative to the point of being nearly useless.

(IAAL but this is not legal advice.)

It’s not libel. Defamation requires a false statement of fact. Marking a website as “unsafe” is an opinion.

They should be held legally culpable for libellous claims they make.

I dont care if their pre-LLM ai says "thingy bad". They are responsible for the scripts or black boxes they control. I dont care if they dont give a reason.

Claiming bad/malicious/etc site is 100% libel. And doubly so, anybody who has been forced to agree to a ToS with binding arbitration should have it removed for libel.

If a newspaper publishes a story about a business and someone takes it upon themselves to attack the business, the attacker is at fault, regardless of the veracity of the newspapers claims.

(IAAL but this is not legal advice.)

It’s not libel. Defamation requires a false statement of fact. Marking a website as “unsafe” is an opinion.

You know it's getting bad out there when corporations act like the government.

I am suspecting something like this too but what is the mechanism by which Google would have influence on the registrar? As far as they are concerned the domain is gone from their index.

It doesn't sound reasonable to me at all. Why would we think that the reasons google blacklists a domain would align perfectly with reasons a domain name would be suspended? In the end they don't seem to agree already since the domain was unsuspended. Who knows why it was blacklisted by google? Even the decision to unsuspend it looks arbitrary.

and anyone that trusts googles judgement here clearly needs a reputation of their own