People wouldn't know or care which to pick. They would see the pop-up asking to select a phishing protection provider, would get confused and angry and think "where do I click to get past this pop-up, I want to go on Facebook and this stupid computer is nagging me with stuff again!"

Phishing protection is mostly needed for people who have no clear concept of phishing or technicalities. They just want to do things on the internet, like social media, they don't care about things behind the scenes, that's boring uncool nerd stuff.

And then they will choose the same block list and sites will have the same problem.

All? I doubt it. Not to mention they could offer control to override whatever you like.

> they could offer control to override

Chrome lets you override and proceed to the site. The problem for the small business is that a large fraction of their customers see the scary red warning page.

Well enough that it will still be a blocker.

Well, that goes without saying. If you want a blocker, you want a blocker. So all the nigerian princes and the like should still be blocked.

You just don't want to give control over the blocking blacklist/whitelist to a single entity, even less so to a huge powerful one, possibly in a country other than your own (which e.g. forces their foreign policy dictums to your blacklist), and even less so the one that already makes your browser, that should be a totally neutral conduit.

I don't think this solves the problem from the article, since small businesses will still have to deal with getting mistakenly blocked by whatever the popular blockers are. With 40,000 new phishing sites per week, it's not an easy task. If the blockers are free (I imagine they'd have to be to get widespread adoption), who's going to review the false positives? Volunteers?

But also, it would leave the people most vulnerable to phishing unprotected, namely those not tech-savvy enough to install a phishing protection service. Most internet users don't even have ad-blockers.