Google is stating in a position of authority. It's therefore being stated as at least a professional opinion with the equivalent weight of fact, or representing facts.

If the opinion is meant to be just another opinion, then it shouldn't cause any blacklisting of any sorts anywhere.

▲

account42 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not to mention that the whole point of the list is for blocking in e.g. web browsers. Claiming it is just an opinion would be like a mobster claiming they didn't actually order a hit.

▲

otterley 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If the opinion is meant to be just another opinion, then it shouldn't cause any blacklisting of any sorts anywhere.

I agree with this! The registrar should not have triggered a suspension because of this. They're not obligated to, and the two processes should be decoupled.

▲

MadameMinty 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The registrar should ignore reports of abuse, especially if coming from an authoritative source with vast resources that's been collecting reports on its own?

No.

The source should be more careful. It's the equivalent of a renowned newspaper printing warning a restaurant being unsafe to visit. Should the customers' willingness to visit be magically decoupled from this opinion?

	▲	ryandrake 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's like a renowned newspaper saying the restaurant is unsafe, and then also the restaurant's landlord taking it at face value and locking the doors without further investigation. Both can be wrong.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	otterley 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> The registrar should ignore reports of abuse, especially if coming from an authoritative source with vast resources that's been collecting reports on its own? I'm not saying they should "ignore" reports of abuse but treat them as they are -- reports. They can then perform their own independent investigation. That may well have happened here. I suspect the author isn't telling us something.