4 ms·

As with most things in this world, you could sue them.

• dheera 11y ago
  It wasn't a major or revenue-generating site, so I don't want to spend on legal fees. If it had been though, I would.
  • ryanlol 11y ago
    Yeah, I've experienced the same and it's really a pain in the ass. Apparently there's tons of orgs that can automatically add sites to that blacklist, I got abuse from some company saying there was a phishing page on my IP because it featured a login page and the text "Amazon" and suddenly chrome started showing alerts when I visited the IP. As with most of similar systems (spamhaus etc) the people running them are just as bad as the people they're trying to stop.
• mtgx 11y ago
  How many of the sites that were illegitimately blocked can afford to sue Google? How many can afford to win against Google's top notch legal team?
  • ryanlol 11y ago
    The real question is "Is it worth it for google to send their legal team to some small claims court hearing instead of just unblocking the site?" And contrary to the popular belief, suing people really isn't that expensive if you've got the time to do it.
• sharkweek 11y ago
  Has any site that has been incorrectly de-indexed from Google sued and won? I have no idea, but this would be super fascinating.
  • jfoster 11y ago
    De-indexed in search is a bit different from effectively blocked in the browser. If Chrome says your site is dangerous and actually your site is harmless, are they defaming your website? If Google choose not to include you in their search engine, that could still be an issue, but it's probably a lot more nuanced.
    • wspeirs 11y ago
      Yea, I wonder if stating a site is dangerous would be considered libel in the US...
      • tomjen3 11y ago
        Probably not, but Google EU is in Ireland and their libel laws are likely to be a lot like those of England, which is to say super pro the person who feels wronged.
• crdoconnor 11y ago
  They'd invoke the first amendment. It would be pretty open and shut.
  • nerfhammer 11y ago
    If the claim that your site is dangerous is demonstrably false and there are demonstrable damages you can indeed be liable for damages or face injunction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • ryanlol 11y ago
    I'm not sure if you know what the "first amendment" is. I'll tell you what it isn't, it's not a magical trump card that lets you say whatever you want.
    • crdoconnor 11y ago
      http://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-first-amendment-control-search-results-209034 http://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-fi... That seems to be how Google is (successfully) using it.
      • maehwasu 11y ago
        That's a VERY different situation. Google is claiming there that (essentially) they have the right to put sites in whatever order they want, and US courts are extremely sympathetic to that argument. Here the issue is that Google is making direct, verbal claims about other sites. That's not to say Google couldn't come up with a strategy to win in court, but the strategy would have to differ markedly.
  • killface 11y ago
    google is not a government agency. you can't claim first amendment when dealing with private parties. that's like me suing the NFL for not letting me post racist rants on their homepage because of the first amendment. edit: i dun read gud. leaving comment as an homage to lack of literacy