> It becomes blackmail under certain circumstances, like where you're threatening to harm someone [illegally?]... As a general rule, if I take action A and act

> It becomes blackmail under certain circumstances, like where you're threatening to harm someone [illegally?]... As a general rule, if I take action A and action A will result in a higher probability of harm coming to anyone, whether it's illegal or not...I'm a bad guy. Whether you call it blackmail or not, Google is the bad guy here. > Yup, sounds like competition to me. Oh good. I hope you can still apply the same logic if your personal bank gets attacked and your money is stolen because of the fact that Google decided to release detailed information to the mafia. > ...explain why you think this is "anti-competitive."...forbidding a company from trying to demonstrate that its product is more secure... That's not what's happening here. Google is not demonstrating any product here. The guy who runs Project Zero stated that “People deserve to use the internet without fear that vulnerabilities out there can ruin their privacy with a single website visit,”. Do you think Google's action here has resulted in more or less of a probability of harm coming to users here?