Marking a website as "unsafe" in Chrome is equal to standing in front of the door of a small restaurant and blocking 71% of people going inside. Everyone first has to agree that they will enter the restaurant at their own risk.

That is more than an opinion. Chrome has a monopoly and should act accordingly. Blocking entry to a website should be a last resort, not just because someone didn't add their website to the whitelist.

▲

donmcronald 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah. Everyone uses their list and being blocked by all web browsers is like having someone cover the doorway with a massive DANGER sign. It's insane that people are roaming around here arguing that it's ok because the damage caused is a necessity for "internet scale".

	▲	otterley 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Right now, any damages are completely speculative at this point. I would suspect in this case, the damages are minimal, and taken in the broader context, the good outweighs the harm. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
	▲	retired 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Indeed. It is almost like how the Mafia operates. This person didn't submit his website to Google and now Google blocks visitors.