[BartjeD]

In what country hasn't the legal system caught up?

The point I raise is that the internet is international. There are N legal systems that are going to deal with this. And in 99% of them this isn't going to end well for Google if plaintiff can show there are damages to a reasonable degree.

It's bonkers in terms of risk management.

If you want to make this a workable system you have to make it very clear this isn't necessarily dangerous at all, or criminal. And that a third party list was used, in part, to flag it. And even then you're impeding visitors to a website with warnings without any evidence that there is in fact something wrong.

If this happens to a political party hosting blogs, it's hunting season.

[jtwaleson]

I meant that there is no global authority for saying which websites are OK and which ones are not. So not really that the legal system in specific countries have not caught up.

Lacking a global authority, Google is right to implement a filter themselves. Most people are really really dumb online and if not as clearly "DO NOT ENTER" as now, I don't think the warnings will work. I agree that from a legal standpoint it's super dangerous. Content moderation (which is basically what this is) is an insanely difficult problem for any platform.