I wonder if Radix has unknowingly created a negative feedback loop here. From Google's perspective, the DNS records disappear shortly after being flagged by Safe Browsing, which their heuristics may interpret as scammy behavior.
Never buy a .online domain
101–110 of 513 posts
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#102Are there any other TLDs that are of this ilk or are we saying nothing but .com will ever do? Or .org, perhaps?
I would love a list of Radix TLDs or registrars who do this Safe Browsing ban with no appeal. Also, go figure Namecheap works with these morons.
from their site (radix.website):
.store, .online, .tech, .site, .fun, .pw, .host, .press, .space, .uno, .website
not sure about other registrars
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#103Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. This goes right to the top for me, along the ubiquitous "please verify your account" emails with NO OPTION to click "that's NOT me, somebody misused my email". Either people who do this for a living have no clue how to do their job, or, depressingly more likely, their goals are just complet…
No need to look for malicious intentions, this is just a feature that costs money so it's very low (or zero) priority for profit driven organisations. I wonder if finding people responsible and spamming then with their own service emails would make the team care enough to fix this. But of course that's mostly dubious, probably illegal, and shouldn't be a responsibility of some vigilante hacker
What is the word for harming other people in order to make more money for yourself, if not "malicious"?
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#104The registrar relying on Google Safe Browsing as a “trigger” for suspension is the most horrifying thing I’ve seen in a while. This basically makes the entire TLD unviable for serious use.
Who said serious use is their business model though.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#105Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. This goes right to the top for me, along the ubiquitous "please verify your account" emails with NO OPTION to click "that's NOT me, somebody misused my email". Either people who do this for a living have no clue how to do their job, or, depressingly more likely, their goals are just complet…
Someone constantly adds my Gmail address as their Gmail account's backup address. I constantly remove it whenever Gmail sends me the notification. I can't help but think there is some method for the other person to steal my Gmail account if I never remove my email as their backup.
I logged in several times to other people's accounts and reset their passwords. But it's too tiring, people keep adding my email.
I hope it's because I have small simple email and not because they want to steal it.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#106Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. This goes right to the top for me, along the ubiquitous "please verify your account" emails with NO OPTION to click "that's NOT me, somebody misused my email". Either people who do this for a living have no clue how to do their job, or, depressingly more likely, their goals are just complet…
I prefer "please verify your account" to "thanks for joining" by a lot. The former presumably does not verify when I ignore it. The latter should be illegal but somehow isn't.
I do wish there was a requirement for some sort of "no" button that would stop sending sign up requests entirely.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google should not be allowed to make libelous statements without consequences.
(IAAL but this is not legal advice.) It’s not libel. Defamation requires a false statement of fact . Marking a website as “unsafe” is an opinion .
How is it any more of an opinion to "mark" a website as "unsafe" than say, "contains CSAM"?
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#108Re: Never buy a .online domain
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google should not be allowed to make libelous statements without consequences.
(IAAL but this is not legal advice.) It’s not libel. Defamation requires a false statement of fact . Marking a website as “unsafe” is an opinion .
Google is stating in a position of authority. It's therefore being stated as at least a professional opinion with the equivalent weight of fact, or representing facts.
If the opinion is meant to be just another opinion, then it shouldn't cause any blacklisting of any sorts anywhere.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's both's fault. Google for making false and clearly damaging statements (libel) and Radix for acting on them.
(IAAL but this is not legal advice.) It’s not libel. Defamation requires a false statement of fact. Marking a website as “unsafe” is an opinion.
It's being stated as fact, not as an opinion.