8 ms·

The solution is for the legitimate sites that are driven out of business by Google AI to sue Google for tortuous interference and libel.

• nearbuy 6y ago
  This helps one group and hurts another. If Google is liable for blocking potential malware and phishing pages, they'll either stop blocking it, or adjust their algorithm to strongly err on the side of allowing phishing sites. Businesses become safer, but more regular people will get phished.
  • coldtea 6y ago
    >or adjust their algorithm to strongly err on the side of allowing phishing sites. It'a not the role of Google to disallow phishing sites (as a browser) just like it's not the role of the ISP. Make it hookable so people can chose their own phising protection service.
    • msh 6y ago
      And then they will choose the same block list and sites will have the same problem.
      • coldtea 6y ago
        All? I doubt it. Not to mention they could offer control to override whatever you like.
        • msh 6y ago
          Well enough that it will still be a blocker.
          • coldtea 6y ago
            Well, that goes without saying. If you want a blocker, you want a blocker. So all the nigerian princes and the like should still be blocked. You just don't want to give control over the blocking blacklist/whitelist to a single entity, even less so to a huge powerful one, possibly in a country other than your own (which e.g. forces their foreign policy dictums to your blacklist), and even less so the one that already makes your browser, that should be a totally neutral conduit.
            • nearbuy 6y ago
              I don't think this solves the problem from the article, since small businesses will still have to deal with getting mistakenly blocked by whatever the popular blockers are. With 40,000 new phishing sites per week, it's not an easy task. If the blockers are free (I imagine they'd have to be to get widespread adoption), who's going to review the false positives? Volunteers? But also, it would leave the people most vulnerable to phishing unprotected, namely those not tech-savvy enough to install a phishing protection service. Most internet users don't even have ad-blockers.
        • nearbuy 6y ago
          > they could offer control to override Chrome lets you override and proceed to the site. The problem for the small business is that a large fraction of their customers see the scary red warning page.
    • bonoboTP 6y ago
      People wouldn't know or care which to pick. They would see the pop-up asking to select a phishing protection provider, would get confused and angry and think "where do I click to get past this pop-up, I want to go on Facebook and this stupid computer is nagging me with stuff again!" Phishing protection is mostly needed for people who have no clear concept of phishing or technicalities. They just want to do things on the internet, like social media, they don't care about things behind the scenes, that's boring uncool nerd stuff.
  • fredophile 6y ago
    The problem isn't the company that blocked it. The problem is the company that reported that there was a problem when there wasn't. In this case it sounds like Google is both companies.