[oolongCat]

I really really dislike this. Why does google get to decide which websites are good and which are not. Unless someone subscribes to this service google should do what it does best, search.

One day they decide everyone should be mobile friendly, the next day they decide which sites are bad and which are not, what more?

Every single day, google is giving me more reason to use alternative search engines.

[piyush_soni]

You dislike it just because you dislike it. Your argument is as good (/bad?) as saying "Why does government get to make laws and decide what's good and what's bad?" In any society, we have some basic rules of 'good' and 'bad', and it's totally ok to test a website on those measures. Like a website secretively installing malware on your machine is bad. In a parallel world, that might be a good thing.

[pessimizer]

> Why does government get to make laws and decide what's good and what's bad?

We do ask this. It's the entire reason we vote in representative democracies. It's absolutely nothing like the question you're replying to.

> In any society, we have some basic rules of 'good' and 'bad', and it's totally ok to test a website on those measures.

The basic rules of societies for what is 'good' and 'bad' about websites is something that you have entirely invented here in order to make an empty, unnecessarily dismissive argument.

Here's my answer: Google decides because our governments have abdicated responsibility for regulation or enforcement. Therefore, the responsibility is taken up by the groups in the best position to exploit it for money.

[piyush_soni]

> We do ask this. It's the entire reason we vote in representative democracies

And you settle with a government which agrees to 'your' version of good and bad. But somehow, Google is not entitled to its opinion even if for trying to possibly make a safer internet.

> you have entirely invented here in order to make an empty, unnecessarily dismissive argument

On the contrary, I'd say you have invented your reasons for why Google is doing it (i.e., 'to exploit it for money') without any evidence. Of course, Google is here for profit, doesn't mean there's an evil motive for everything they do.

Of course, your judgement of good v/s bad is for good, and their judgement of good v/s bad is for bad. ;)

[pessimizer]

> And you settle with a government which agrees to 'your' version of good and bad.

That's not how voting works. If the government agreed to my version of good or bad, the country would look a lot differently than it does.

> On the contrary, I'd say you have invented your reasons for why Google is doing it (i.e., 'to exploit it for money') without any evidence. Of course, Google is here for profit,

So you agree with me.

> doesn't mean there's an evil motive for everything they do.

No corporation has evil motives. I don't even know what that means. That it's trying to summon demons?

[piyush_soni]

I don't know if you don't understand simple statements or you are pretending not to, to make some weird point. You vote for a government that promises things which are overall 'good' or 'least bad' according to you. And definitely, you have some version of good and bad you categorize people, and things with. Everyone has (if you don't, this discussion has no meaning). Google is doing the same, and there are people who find it very useful.

And I have no interest in explaining to you like 5 what is an evil corporation. Do a Google search.

[d_theorist]

Nobody is being forced to any attention to their pronouncements. The only reason they are of any relevance is that a lot of people freely choose to use services and software that incorporate them.

[userbinator]

The concern is primarily because Google has, to many people, become "the Internet itself" --- it is in a position of immense power to control what the majority of the Internet-using population sees. This isn't quite the same situation as some random white/blacklisting site's opinion.

[oolongCat]

Precisely!

[idiot99]

Yes, they are.

In Chrome and firefox, if google decides your website isn't up to scratch for some random reason, then visitors will see a big scary red warning and be turned away.

Yes, in theory you could get people to use a browser that doesn't incorporate Google censorship, but that's becoming a big ask.

If your website does become blacklisted by Google, good luck finding out why. They won't tell you, and will instead make you click on a "request review" button a million times while you change things to see if it floats their boat.

Isn't it slightly worrying to have the entity who decides if websites are "safe" or not, also have a monopoly on online advertising? What's to stop them blacklisting sites that use competitors advertising? They could claim that it benefits the users some how, whilst squashing any hint of competition.

Google has become the absolute gatekeeper, and (To me at least) it's a very very sad state of affairs. The www used to be free and open.

[d_theorist]

Anybody who doesn't like the way Google is publishing this information through its browser is free to choose to use another one. Or to turn it off.

There is naturally a tradeoff between the value of this information for avoiding dangerous sites, and the risk that Google might be abusing the power that goes with its role in publishing it. At the moment users are mostly deciding that the risk is worth it.

If Google becomes obviously abusive then users will have to re-assess that equation. But it's the users' decision to make; not ours.

[anon1385]

>At the moment users are mostly deciding that the risk is worth it.

Users aren't making a conscious decision. Browser vendors are making the decision for them. Most people don't change the default settings, especially something that claims to make your browsing "safer".

[ceejayoz]

> Most people don't change the default settings...

We're talking about Chrome, a browser that comes as the default setting on zero major operating systems.

[bob17]

Android, it now has the safe browsing API built into Play services.

https://security.googleblog.com/2015/12/protecting-hundreds-...

I wonder if newer versions of SamsungBrowser use it.

[anon1385]

>We're talking about Chrome

No we aren't. We are talking about the Google Safe Browsing service. They are different things. One is a web browser, the other is a blacklist that any software can use.

It's used by Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Together those make up a majority of browsers.

[partiallypro]

> Nobody is being forced to any attention to their pronouncements

Not necessarily true, your website being flagged by Google can get you blocked on multiple browsers. That's enough to destroy your traffic. Granted, I'd say 99% of these are legit flags from JS injections, etc.

Sure, you could use a browser that doesn't do this...but, you won't.

[jeffjose]

Google is entitled to their opinion. Its upto users to see whether they want to consume that opinion or not.

[a3n]

You're basically complaining that someone has information, or an agenda, or even a mere opinion, and has published it.

[jfoster]

I don't think oolongCat is complaining about the existence of an opinion; it's what they do with it that counts. In the case of search, they demote you. In Chrome, they very nearly block access to your site. If a site really is dangerous, fair enough, but imagine being a false positive and not having much recourse!

[a3n]

I wonder how Google got that much power?