3 ms·
You have good points but you are missing mine: Google doesn't owe anyone the service of removing malicious results. If it is in their own best interest to do so
by _8j50 4y ago
You have good points but you are missing mine: Google doesn't owe anyone the service of removing malicious results. If it is in their own best interest to do so, that is their business. You can't demand they remove this content, the only people who can are their actual customers of google search: advertisers!
The people responsible for the malware removal have abuse contacts and if they don't you kinda have to follow SOP with legal and law enforcement avenues. Just how it works. Even the FBI let's you report internet crime, you can scream at google but law enforcement and webhosts/ISPs(transit providers) are more likely to respond and do something. Vlc doesn't have a fat wallet so your point about the cours is true, but if a lawyer will do pro-bono for them, it's an easy open-and-shut case.
Yes, google owns VT but you won't even see long standing malicious site verdicts in VT make it to safebrowsing, if they won't even do that, do you think people screaming on twitter is something they listen to? I hope so, but unlikely and a waste of time other than for rage scrollers.
- angry_octet 4y agoI think google is suffering big company problems. I think a lot of googlers want to penalise malicious sites but it's a second tier goal for the search team, who are getting hammered constantly by other players trying to alter rankings. Obviously a few open source projects complaining won't move the needle much, but law enforcement and cyber agencies do have big requirements for improving resilience to these attacks (and supply chain especially). Improving the consumer supply chain security is a big government goal in many countries.