What Radix does has no impact on Google, and I don't see how Google would be incentivized to pressure Radix. So I don't see how to make the leap blaming Google for Radix's incompetence. Yes, Google should recognize the risk of this happening, but they'd have to balance that against the rewards (or at least what they consider rewards)

I had my main family domain put on Google's safe browsing block list and it has a massive impact. No one can visit the site. I think apps using system browser runtimes (ie: mobile) may stop working. I've seen reports that it can impact email deliver-ability. And, now, we see that it can get your domain put on serverHold so the problem becomes impossible to rectify.

Google should have to pay for the damage. In my case, it was about 4h of work to figure out what was going on and how to fix it, so not much, but I've seen small businesses that rely on their primary domain to drive most of their sales via web and email. In those cases, having your domain placed on server hold because of Google's false statements can have a serious, detrimental financial effect.

But my point is that any knock on effects like domain suspension, email deliver-ability, etc. stem from 3rd parties misusing the safe browsing list outside the scope of safe browsing.

I don't see how Google can be blamed for other companies erroneously treating the safe browsing list as a source of truth for generally malicious domains

That's fair and I agree. My opinion is that both should be liable in a case like this. If I had to attribute it, my starting point would be that Google is liable for the loss of website traffic and the registry is liable for the loss of email and all other lost services due to the domain suspension.

It spirals though because, like you pointed out, no one forced (ex:) Mozilla or Apple to adopt the blacklist. They did that voluntarily, so they should be responsible for their share. That's why nothing ever gets fixed. It's broken, but there's so much potential for finger pointing that no one gets pinned down and held responsible.

The answer is always the same IMO. Break up big tech companies into a million little pieces.

I totally agree, but if I went after every company I felt to be incompetent to the point of criminal negligence I'd be up to my eyeballs in lawsuits just over password requirements.

> The answer is always the same IMO. Break up big tech companies into a million little pieces.

Generally I agree, but in this case I think there's an even simpler solution: 1) hold Google accountable for entries in their safe browsing lists (as an adjacent poster pointed out, the legal precedent may be there) and 2) make companies legally liable for misusing 3rd party data.

Really just the second part would suffice, and frankly it's purely good for society. The inevitable outcome is that no one exposes data they can't guarantee, and maliciously consuming 3p data would nearly disappear

Google should not have known that someone would misuse their block list to block domains. But now that someone is misusing their block list to block domains, if someone brings it to their attention, the next time this happens, they will have known it.

I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

"See details"> "ignore the risk" works for me. Even Chrome lets you ignore the warning if you click the details button. That's not the problem, though; the problem is that the registrar decided that the browser warning ("something might be wrong") as proof of malice (took down the domain entirely).

What is to stop everyone from doing this blacklisting?

Spyware filters used to boast about how many domains they filter out because they wanted you to buy their filters instead of someone else's. By the time they hit a false positive, they've already sold a year's subscription to that customer.

The incentives are different.

Step 2: Alter filters to mark newly-registered domains and low-traffic websites as "potentially harmful".

Step 3: Charge a lot of money for "business verification" - which gives them a fancy badge somewhere and incidentally makes their website trustworthy in the eyes of your filter.

Step 4: Profit!

The Big Tech cartel has been doing this pretty successfully with email (see the weekly "Don't self-host your email" posts), why should we assume they are doing anything different with browser-based website blocking?

Indeed. I was going to register an account somewhere the other day, and the signup form had a list of acceptable email domains. Gmail, Protonmail, Outlook, Yahoo, Icloud... a few others. It's not the first time that's happened to me. Sad.

EDIT: Didn't even include Fastmail, who's pretty big after all. They host MX for my domain, so I could have "circumvented" it that way with their disposable address feature, but nope.

Yeah, sounds like a great cartel idea, if they actually did that. None of my domains ever got marked as potentially harmful, even the one that I bought as a joke because it would be so easy to turn it into a phishing site.

Not everything is a big conspiracy to oppress the population. We hear about the cases where it goes wrong because the HN front page is the fastest way to reach the single part-time support person Google seems to employ.

- They make almost all their money on advertising

- They have deep ties to the US intelligence agencies (To the point that a Google employee managed the appointment calendar for our Secretary of State a few years ago!)

So, how would these incentives apply to their Internet blacklist?

- If you are parking lots of Google ad spam, they are taking a cut of your revenue, so they have an incentive to take you off the list (evidence and testimony from the antitrust trial documented ongoing fraud in every layer of Google's vertical ad monopoly)

- If you are hosting something the intelligence agencies dislike / are neutral to / like, that'll impact your presence on the list.

There is also the headache of PR issues when they get a false NEGATIVE. “Google didn’t protect grandma from this scam website!”

There is no incentive for adding false positives to lists of malicious websites.

Chrome is big enough that a website owner can't afford a false positive on their malware list, just like they can't afford to have all their email end up in spam for all Gmail users.

Due to their near-monopoly Google also has no incentive to avoid adding false positives to their blocklist - provided they don't accidentally block high-profile targets. And if a CxO is screaming over your shoulder that your website has been blocked, arguments about "false positives" aren't very compelling: they'll just demand you move off the "shitty basement provider" and switch to "proper hosting, like the Google Cloud"...

that whiny bullshit about somebody elses website? you dont have to rely on a website or app. either you need their monopoly because you cant do it yourself, or you have options.... in both cases the whining is not needed

It doesn't really matter that it's Google. It could have been Microsoft, or PAN, or McAfee or some fly-by-night vendor. The problem was Radix taking the list as iron-clad truth and disabling the domain without any notification or way to resolve the issue.

And Google has the right to publish a list, there should be more lists not less. But Google was at fault for not correcting their blacklist. Until the article appeared on Hacker News, this was not 0% on Google. A small, correctable mistake, but they deserved a tiny bit of blame.

If all it takes to be taken from the blacklist was to temporarily delete the NS record - the list would be useless against malware.

What stands out to me:

> Earlier this year, Namecheap was running a promo that let you choose one free .online or .site per account.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of Namecheap's customers who used the "register a domain for free" discount were indeed malicious. Without seeing the results of whatever analysis Google did to flag this website, it's hard to say whether Google is at fault here.