MB - looks like you really stepped in it..

[NotDeadYet]

MB -

Please re-read some your answers re: blocking entire gTLDs.

Yes, there are bad websites out there - which is why we (the customers) pay you (and you work for us, remember?) for protection.

If you don't want to do the work do decide which are "good" and "bad" sites, just say so.

If you were talking about people and not malware, you're answers would read something like "well, we're deporting all <fill in the name of any group you hate> because a lot of them are bad people".

Is that the corporate image you want to promote?

You really have no idea which websites are bad so you just block entire gTLDs and leave it up to customers to figure out?  How much will you pay customers to do the job we paid you to do?

So try that again... try saying to a co-worker "well we've decided to fire you because you are a <fill in their ethnic, gender/sexuality, religious, etc.,> because as we all know most of "you people" are bad".

Do not react to the example statement -- try and comprehend that your answers re: blocking gTLDs are exactly the same sort of statement and rather than spend money and time trying to put the problem back into your customer's lap, focus instead on your product and service.

It is really that hard for you to comprehend that your answers are a joke?

[MysteryFCM]

People != gTLDs (you can try and argue it as such any way you please, though trying to bring politics etc into it is a bit much).

Fact is, certain gTLDs have housed a plethora more malicious content vs non-malicious, and once a threshold is reached, we decide to put a block on them (.study being a prime example - 96% of .study domains are malicious at the last check). When this changes the block is removed, just as we would any other block.