“never buy a non-.(com|net|org) domain”
ftfy
Never buy a .online domain
121–130 of 513 posts
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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.
(IANAL) It's not about how it's stated, but whether it can be objectively proven to be true or false. "unsafe" refers to the likelihood of something bad happening in the future. You can't prove that something bad will happen in the future, so it's opinion.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google’s allowed to have an opinion. But that doesn’t mean that the registrar should be suspending the domain immediately in response. These two mechanisms should be decoupled.
Google should not be allowed to make libelous statements without consequences.
They should be held legally culpable for libellous claims they make.
I dont care if their pre-LLM ai says "thingy bad". They are responsible for the scripts or black boxes they control. I dont care if they dont give a reason.
Claiming bad/malicious/etc site is 100% libel. And doubly so, anybody who has been forced to agree to a ToS with binding arbitration should have it removed for libel.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#124Earlier 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.
Well until a human can verify. Which likely is slow without a poke it's reasonable to base the decision on whats available. That's just how reputation works.
It doesn't sound reasonable to me at all. Why would we think that the reasons google blacklists a domain would align perfectly with reasons a domain name would be suspended? In the end they don't seem to agree already since the domain was unsuspended. Who knows why it was blacklisted by google? Even the decision to unsuspend it looks arbitrary.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#125Earlier 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.
Well until a human can verify. Which likely is slow without a poke it's reasonable to base the decision on whats available. That's just how reputation works.
and anyone that trusts googles judgement here clearly needs a reputation of their own
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like being unable to get a passport because Microsoft has you on The List, and Microsoft needs to see your passport to check why you're on the list. Considering that getting a domain is a normal part of business these days, this kind of thing should be illegal. Not to mention, why does Google have any say in this?
You know it's getting bad out there when corporations act like the government.
It's like the domain registrar is acting like a vassal state. I don't think Google actually has any say in their decision.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big scary red warning page should at least tell you it’s phishing or malware or something else. OP didn’t have a screenshot of that. You can easily go to a safe browsing test site yourself at testsafebrowsing.appspot.com and find that Google does divulge the category of the blacklisting. OP says: > no gore or violence or anything of that sort That’s not even the right criteria. OP is confused about Google Safe Br…
I just wanted to cover all the bases. The site has one outgoing link to the App Store and 3 screenshots.
That sounds like a competitor of yours manually submitting your site to Google for “impersonating” them or something. Anyone can submit URLs to Google to suggest it be blocked: https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/ Perhaps some overworked underpaid analyst had a lapse of judgement. I’m sorry that this happens to you.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#128Last year, my registrar wanted €64,99 to extend an online domain which I had created for fun. No thanks.
yeah same here. I canceled my account on name.com because I had previously obtained a .art domain maybe for ~15-20 USD / yr. Then they wanted $50 USD a year to extend it. No thanks, dropped the domain and moved to namecheap
If the price increase was from the registrar and not the registry you should have been able to move to a different registrar with saner prices.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#129I still remember how Google banned my entire account without providing a reason for a small Android app (more than 12 years ago). To this day I have no idea why, it was absolutely green-area fit tracker or something. There was absolutely no way to know the reason or unblock my account. Turned me away from Android development forever.
Same shit happend to me - got my google account blocked overnight and locked out of most of my digital life. Learned my lesson and ungoogled asap.
Re: Never buy a .online domain
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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.
> If the opinion is meant to be just another opinion, then it shouldn't cause any blacklisting of any sorts anywhere.
I agree with this! The registrar should not have triggered a suspension because of this. They're not obligated to, and the two processes should be decoupled.