| ▲ | simsla 6 hours ago | |
There is a financial incentive to make the search results worse. (More searches, more ads, more money.) There is no incentive for adding false positives to lists of malicious websites. | ||
| ▲ | crote 5 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Sure, until their "smart filters" start considering GCP-hosted websites as pre-verified and small self-hosted websites as malicious. You know, like they have been doing with email? Chrome is big enough that a website owner can't afford a false positive on their malware list, just like they can't afford to have all their email end up in spam for all Gmail users. Due to their near-monopoly Google also has no incentive to avoid adding false positives to their blocklist - provided they don't accidentally block high-profile targets. And if a CxO is screaming over your shoulder that your website has been blocked, arguments about "false positives" aren't very compelling: they'll just demand you move off the "shitty basement provider" and switch to "proper hosting, like the Google Cloud"... | ||