Well are we going to label cake as a dangerous site on google. They have had similar security issues to Cake.

What about ipoker and ongame, the network is riddled with pokerbots, collusion and dataminers. Accounts are easily hacked and there arent even RSA cards.
All these things damage fishes. Should we label these on google.

Lets do the same for Partypoker, since they charge crazy rake on some stakes, in comparison to other sites. We have to let the fish know.

What about fulltilt, they only give certain players rakeback, ripping the fish off. They provide non extistent support and their lack of intelligence and inabilaty to act or be contacted have cost hacked players thousands. Lets mark them on google too.

Of course, I posted a pro Cereus thread and it got closed.

Apparantly you cant post a thread on the forum expressing your view, unless the admins agree with it. Propaganda at its best. Sums up the Cereus situation on this site. You cant post in favour, because of cencorship and ridicule.

Your pro Cereus thread read more of an advert than an argument or opinion.

I'm happy to debate with you. So please answer me, why is it so wrong to notify people about the potential risk they run when using UB?

There are risks with using any pokersite.
What specific risks are you referring to?

This is exactly what fish are. If you don't want to level the playing field you should tell everyone you play with to come to 2p2 and suggest the best training site/books. Since you are so worried about there well being.

You are correct that there are risks with every poker site, but would you not argue that the history of UB would indicate that it is riskier than other sites, to the point of being unacceptably risky?

You are referring to risk that have been corrected. What are you going to be highlighting in google, risks?, or past risks?

Should all sites not be highlighted since all sites have risks.

hahaha

The risks haven't been corrected, that is the point. And perhaps they never will be because of the underlying rot within the company

and thats when he'll cite we're speculating.

cool story bro, you can play attorney. doesnt change the fact you're a slimeball for defending UB.

What are you thinking when you compare the exposed "risks" on Cereus sites, to the risks on all the other sites?

Again, which risks are you referring to exactly? Please....

Quote from some guy in another thread:

ARE YOU CEREUS?

Depositing $1k on UB right now since it's so fishy and safe.

Anyway, this whole thread is stupid. Google mark sites that may compromise or damage a users computer or infect a computer with a virus.

They dont mark sites based on business practises. Its the users responsibility to research who they do business with.