What point are you trying to make here? You hosted phishing sites on your primary domain, which was then flagged as unsafe. You chose not to use the tools that would have marked those sites as belonging to individual users, and the system worked as designed.

You're not wrong. You just picked a poor example which illustrates the opposite of the point you're making.

> but it's hard to argue that they don't have a gigantic influence on the whole internet, no? :)

Then don't relate this to safe browsing. What is the connection?

You could have just written a one liner. Google has too much power. This has nothing to do with safe-browsing.

In fact you could write...

- USA/China/EU etc has too much power..

You use the word relative in another reply..

Same way.. My employer has relatively too much power...

How does Google get money out of people in that case? As a corporation, Google contributes greatly to the education sector and also profits greatly, so it seems like they're pro-education to me, and are merely making the best of a bad situation, but I'd love to hear how Google extracts money from the people they've protected from phishing schemes in some secret way that I haven't considered. I do happen to have Google stock in my portfolio though, so maybe that indight's my entire comment for you though.

This is a fine mentality when it takes a certain amount of "Internet street smarts" (a term used in the article) to access the internet - at least beyond AOL etc.

But over half of the world has internet access, mostly via Chrome (largely via Android inclusion). At least some frontline protection (that can be turned off) is warranted when you need to cater to at least the millions of people who just started accessing the internet today, and the billions who don't/can't/won't put the effort in to learn those "Internet street smarts".