It does. "Unsafe" is not a fact, it's an opinion.

"When Google marks a site as "unsafe" or "dangerous" in Chrome or search results, it is a factual finding based on automated detection of specific, technical security threats, rather than a subjective opinion. These warnings are triggered by Google’s Safe Browsing technology, which scans billions of URLs daily to protect users from malicious content"

Opinions and facts in a legal context usually comes down to who is saying what. Someone personally says "this soup is bad" on a review site = opinion. A news site plastering it on their front page = fact.

A person saying something as an individual is usually considered an opinion. A company doesn't have that same protection.

▲

otterley 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> "When Google marks a site as "unsafe" or "dangerous" in Chrome or search results, it is a factual finding based on automated detection of specific, technical security threats, rather than a subjective opinion. These warnings are triggered by Google’s Safe Browsing technology, which scans billions of URLs daily to protect users from malicious content"

Whom are you quoting here? A court opinion?

▲

habinero 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nope. Not correct. Companies have the same 1A rights, too.

In the US, it really doesn't matter who says it, the only thing that matters is who it's being said about.

If you are a "public figure" -- which is a much broader category in 1A law than you think -- then in order to prove defamation, you have to prove the thing was false _and_ that the person saying it knew it was false at the time. Not that they were mistaken, not that they were careless, not that they knew later, they deliberately lied and knew they lied as they said it.

If your next question is "how do you prove what someone was thinking", then yes. That is the reason it's nearly impossible.

▲

rtsam 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Not talking about 1A rights or public figures. We are talking about

Opinions (Protected) vs Facts (Not Protected)

Defamation cases where individuals say something are usually considered opinions and companies are usually considered facts in the eyes of the courts. I say "Usually"

Defamation also DOES NOT require intent, but it requires a minimum level of fault (negligence)

Google saying something is unsafe in the web search or browser would not be considered an opinion because of their position of authority. It would not even be a debate since Google has already said they make decisions based on facts and data presented to them.

The only question is are they negligent in their assessment or response to a false report. And what would be the damages. In the case of a phishing report that is false courts would already consider it defamation per se (damages presumed)

	▲	otterley 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Google saying something is unsafe in the web search or browser would not be considered an opinion because of their position of authority. Everything the Supreme Court rules is an "opinion." And they're the ultimate arbiter of legal questions in the U.S. Whether a statement is a fact and whether the person who said it is considered an "authority" or not are independent concerns.
	▲	habinero 27 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		We are absolutely talking about the 1A lol. Defamation is 1A law. It is one of the few recognized exceptions to the 1A. And we are also 100% talking about public figures. "Public figures" include companies and it's a critical part of 1A since Times v Sullivan. Google is a US company and has 1A rights. That's how it works. The rest of what you said is nonsense and is your idea of how it should work, but has nothing to do with how it actually works.