131–140 of 513 posts
Earlier 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 .
How is it any more of an opinion to "mark" a website as "unsafe" than say, "contains CSAM"?
Earlier 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.
I get that's mostly what corporate lawyers argue about, but it's functionally dishonest in this case.
Why was the domain blacklisted though? What can we do to prevent blacklisting in the first place?
If the domain is being given away for free, it will be used a lot for scams etc, so a lot of systems will just start blocking it immediately. When I got my first domain, I used one of the free TLDs and my university blocked it completely due to it being a scam. Not for any of the content on it, just the TLD being commonly used by scammers
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No it isn't. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
Please, use words correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The bigger problem is the unbanning The was my first thought as well. Yes, using the Safe Browsing list feels wrong, but I don't know enough to speak definitively in that regards. However wouldn't a relatively simple solution be that if a registrar is choosing to use some third party's list of banned DNS entries that the registrar then also implement sufficient unblocked components that will allow people to be unba…
There is _some amount_ of justification to ban TXT. There have been a few cases of C2 servers using DNS to send instructions to malware, so letting TXT slip through the cracks would still allow for that. Now whether this downside justifies the massive problem it causes on false positives...
> 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…
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.
Because keeping Google happy or at least not bothered is an existential priority for registrars
Hot Take: the proactive action of the registrar here is probably more beneficial than the number of false positives captured. If the registrar is aware that Google is hot on blocking potentially harmful sites, it's right that they take action expeditiously. The bigger problem is the unbanning - for which there should be a better system, probably that should take the form of the registrar having a short grace period t…
> The bigger problem is the unbanning The was my first thought as well. Yes, using the Safe Browsing list feels wrong, but I don't know enough to speak definitively in that regards. However wouldn't a relatively simple solution be that if a registrar is choosing to use some third party's list of banned DNS entries that the registrar then also implement sufficient unblocked components that will allow people to be unba…
The registry only maintains a list of NameServers associated with the domain (and records for DNSSEC zone signing). Registries have nothing to do with regular records. They only record who defines those records.
Earlier 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.
This seems like a distinction without difference, given everyone in the ecosystem takes that "opinion" as true fact, including the market-leading browser produced by the "opinion"-haver. I get that's mostly what corporate lawyers argue about, but it's functionally dishonest in this case.
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
I use them when I need a random domain.
Earlier 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 .
How is it any more of an opinion to "mark" a website as "unsafe" than say, "contains CSAM"?
“unsafe” is a term that is both broader and more vague, so I would consider it opinion unless backed up by appropriate facts (like “contains CSAM”, “contains malware”, and so forth).