[dredmorbius]

Given the risk/reward of, oh, say, finding my systems hosed or users scammed and/or bank accounts drained, vs. missing out on someone's link shortener, I think I'll err on the side of caution.

This being an assessment based on local awareness of circumstances.

[cptn_brittish]

In what way are you more secure then when someone uses a .com domain? In both cases it is easy to register a url and turn into a malicious site. It really seems you are blackholing parts of the web for no good reason except to exempt yourself from actually performing a security check on the sites on the assumption all other tld's are safe.

[dredmorbius]

Wrong question.

Risk. Reward. Administrative cost.

The first of these I blocked when I looked at the domain and realised that the TLD were registering any old line noise. I'm not going to bother sorting that. Search for other experience turned up Blue Coat.

I subscribe to blocklists, and they update periodically. There are other levels of protection.

When a TLD is 99.9% malware or scams, it's far easier to block it outright. Registrars should take responsibility for what they're registering. Not my problem.

[cptn_brittish]

My experiance with symantec web protection (which I assume will use the same blocklists they are talking about) is that it has a ridiculous false positive rate and when I was still in High School they had blue-coat installed and it had a worse false positive rate. I would be very careful about running blacklists from those companies aside from anti-ad blocklists.