[Avamander]

> If a weapons manufacturer made a gun that 1 in every billion times shot you in the head instead of your target, we wouldn't say, "well, sometimes accidents happen" and brush it off.

A more apt comparison would be with seatbelts or airbags.

> Google in its current form is immune to the consequences of the decisions of its robots, and that is not acceptable.

The market forces are sufficient. If the FP rate climbs too high more people will disable the feature, easy.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> The market forces are sufficient. If the FP rate climbs too high more people will disable the feature, easy

do you have any evidence this is true? it seems like a hypothesis that you totally made up just now

it's hard to even imagine the feedback loop that would convince the average user to enter their browser settings and change one of them just to view a website for a product they're interested in but google wrongly blocked them from seeing

indeed, if it were so easy to convince a user to do so, google could make the feature opt-in, with informed consent that the feature might wrongly block them from seeing sites they want to see, letting the user decide for themselves if they want to enable it

no, it seems common sense that they'd just move onto another website/product, and market forces would never actually come into play

[BizarroLand]

>The market forces are sufficient

Try explaining that to people who lost tens of thousands of dollars or more in missed transactions due to Google's fuckups. I'm sure they will be consoled that one day if the right fairy farts in the right direction google will stop screwing people over in this particular way.

[Avamander]

That's a business risk alright. Some other AV vendor or RBL might list you as well.

Inevitably anti-phish solutions end up with false positives, but it's utterly out of the question and silly to ask everyone to stand down defenceless.

[BizarroLand]

I get that you're deadset on defending googoo no matter what, but surely you have to agree that the fact that they made browsers block access to your site AND that you have no ability to do anything about it short of filing a lawsuit or waiting for them to get around to fixing it if they ever do is unconscionable, right?

I get that it's a service.

I don't get how not having human intervention available to fix it when it goes wrong is defendable business practices.

[Avamander]

> that they made browsers block access to your site AND that you have no ability to do anything about it short of filing a lawsuit or waiting for them to get around to fixing it if they ever do is unconscionable, right?

So do AV vendors. What specifically makes it not okay for Google? Have you tried delisting a website from other vendors' products? Microsoft SafeScreen?

If you want to hate on Google doing (or not doing) something, do it based on criteria that can actually be fulfilled.

[ImPostingOnHN]

considering the topic is google's wrongdoing, discussing google's wrongdoing seems appropriate

your repeated attempts to deflect to literally anything except google's wrongdoing makes it seem like you think google should receive special treatment versus the others you're deflecting to

if not, then take your issues with others up with others, or perhaps in a discussion about others, rather than in a discussion about google's wrongdoing, which we can discuss here

[Avamander]

You're trying to discuss Google's inability to be perfect, I'm trying to give you a chance to ground this discussion in reality. So far you've dead-stuck on hating Google just for the sake of it, even if they'd deserve it, you're making the discussion ridiculous and useless.