How is blocking an application because of the actions of one user “legit”?
If their spider were treating sites fairly, it’d also block google search, and the chrome team wouldn’t budge on the decision even though the rest of the company collapsed.
I hope the anti trust investigators focus on these sorts of instead of some trivially-bypassed thing, like bundling.
After the botched MS antitrust suit, I’m not holding my breath.
Interesting. I blocked executable file types I knew of though. It's possible someone uploaded a MS Office file with a virus, a HTML file with a phishing scam or some such, though.
Still, I don't think it's right for Google to use their iron feet to stomp an entire website / product / small business / personal project just because of a small fraction of users abusing that service.
ALL services get abused at some point or another during their growth. Learning to deal with those abuses one at a time is a part of the growth of any product and nobody can be expected to have prevented all forms of abuse upfront. If the owners (e.g. me) were made aware of the specific piece of malware I would have definitely done something about it.
Exactly. The service was used to distribute malware and it got blocked by google and co.
There was a similar story last month about someone running a URL shortener. It started being used to obfuscate links to porn and scams. Then it got blocked by twitter/facebook and that's the end of the road for the service.
If their spider were treating sites fairly, it’d also block google search, and the chrome team wouldn’t budge on the decision even though the rest of the company collapsed.
I hope the anti trust investigators focus on these sorts of instead of some trivially-bypassed thing, like bundling.
After the botched MS antitrust suit, I’m not holding my breath.