Strictly that's not correct. The whole experience here was a "warning", though it was given to users of the site and not the owners directly. Chrome will allo

Strictly that's not correct. The whole experience here was a "warning", though it was given to users of the site and not the owners directly. Chrome will allow access through that warning page via an override, and of course they have the option of using other browsers. But even interpreting you narrowly: How much warning do you think Google should be expected to give before flagging sites with known malicious content? Would you apply that same logic to the sites you visit as a user? I just don't see how the principle you want is going to work in concert with a world with rampant malware. Most of us very much want the trigger happy filers, because it keeps the problem manageable at the cost of some inconvenience and increased vigilance on the part of the content providers, which is IMHO exactly where it should be.