I feel like we're just using different definitions of implicit nullability, and by your definition, no language with value types is implicitly nullable, whereas by my definition, every language without nullable references is implicitly nullable. I think your definition is bad and uncommon, but that's not a very fruitful line of discussion.

You're referring to how some languages have non-nullable references, which is fine. That's probably a better term to be using, since it is more clearly defined and less contentious in this discussion.

I agree that Go should consider adopting non-nullable references.