It would be individual users job to police what sites they go to. It would be hosting providers jobs to police the content of their hosters.
The person who makes the search engine, and the browser, and the black list should not be one in the same.
Do you know how many sites would be absolute minefields without google? They incentivise websites to commit to some clean standard so that the 'individual user' doesn't have to run a script every time they visit a website to make sure it's clean. And guess what: whatever script they run will just end up becoming a different google anyway.
We have enough history to know users can't self-police. This doesn't scale. Most users don't understand the internet nearly well enough to shoulder that burden.
At least in the Bay the police can't even stay in the confines of the laws they're sworn to uphold (stop signs, speed limits, not drunkenly swerving into the bike lane I'm inhabiting, ...). What reason do we have to believe they'd handle an unfamiliar problem domain with any better proficiency?
Police take reports from victims then what? How do police protect you from a site hosted outside their jurisdiction?
I think tech companies deciding what people can access is the most likely endgame no matter what. People will demand protection. Whether it's a great firewall, a whitelist-only internet, ...or just automated filtering like this, which may be the most liberal option we can realistically expect.
The police go and arrest them. This is true even for other jurisdictions. It's not as if there are no police in France or Australia.
What you're left with is things hosted out of uncooperative countries like Russia or China. But then shouldn't the block list consist entirely of things hosted out of uncooperative countries like Russia or China? How did this US-hosted business fall victim?
