151–160 of 513 posts
The TLD owner in this case was Radix, which also owns .store .online .tech .site .fun .pw .host .press .space .uno .website https://radix.website/
They seem to be almost always associated with scam sites. So, might as well to block entire TLDs and never buy a domain under those TLDs
> The domain ... has been suspended due to its blacklisting on Google Safe Browsing Et voilà ... ! this is precisely the slippery slope I warned about a decade ago. The indirect censorship becomes direct censorship, defeating all the arguments about the morality of such a list. And: > Not adding the domain to Google Search Console immediately. I don't need their analytics and wasn't really planning on having any cont…
How was this Google’s fault? Seems clearly like Radix’s fault.
The 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.
The followup from that would appear to be don't use any domain that Radix controls.
Side note: My empirical experience is that vanity domains are disliked by some enterprise security systems. I have a friend who owns a .homes domain which ended up being blocked by quad9 as well as the enterprise security system of a friend's work for ~half a year. The block cleared by itself. I had the same experience while buying another TLD. For ~1 month, certain people whose ISP "helpfully" had "safe browsing" fe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the bit that jumped at me immediately too. Why would a registrar take it upon itself to suspend a domain that another entity entirely blacklisted as part of their own completely opaque process? Who is Google? God? On the flip side of the coin I cannot get a site removed that is a blatant rip off of one of our websites being actively used for invoice redirection fraud.
> Why would a registrar take it upon itself to Because keeping Google happy or at least not bothered is an existential priority for registrars
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Claiming bad/malicious/etc site is 100% libel. No it isn't. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation Please, use words correctly.
The words in your link do not support the words in your comment. Don't be snarky unless you are certain you're correct. > a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the sta…
Earlier 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 .
No, it's not.
You're welcome to cite case law if you want to insist. Otherwise, unsafe (in the context of infosec) has a definition of likely or able to cause harm or malfunction. Something that is provable or falsifiable with evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> The domain ... has been suspended due to its blacklisting on Google Safe Browsing Et voilà ... ! this is precisely the slippery slope I warned about a decade ago. The indirect censorship becomes direct censorship, defeating all the arguments about the morality of such a list. And: > Not adding the domain to Google Search Console immediately. I don't need their analytics and wasn't really planning on having any cont…
This is 100% on Radix, not on Google. Google and Microsoft can (and probably should) have a registry of known-abusive websites. False positives are inevitable, so these should be taken with a grain of salt, but in most cases they're correct. Their lists are a lot more reliable than those from the "traditional" antivirus/anti-scam vendors that will list anything remotely strange to pump up their numbers. The external…
What is to stop everyone from doing this blacklisting?