It's already sort of paternalistic that a malware company gets to say what is and isn't malicious, when there may be shades of gray or matters of opinion involv

It's already sort of paternalistic that a malware company gets to say what is and isn't malicious, when there may be shades of gray or matters of opinion involved. I've been studying residential proxies in particular lately, and the amazing thing is that not all residential proxies are pwned machines in botnets, there are some actual consenting users who say "sure, I'll share my connection with strangers!" So if you take a normally malicious activity like proxying gray-market Internet traffic, and you add informed consent or even monetary incentives that make it OK with the user, how do you really define malware and unwanted programs? Now I see comments already that Enigma is bona-fide malware and it's merely masquerading as something good, and Malwarebytes has every right to classify it as malicious. So this court ruling could be bad. But who gets appointed as the arbiter of maliciousness? Remember when popular adblockers started letting through ads for their buddies? Does software do the bidding of its corporation or of the user who installs it?