The implication that gTLDs are bad and new ones shouldn't be introduced because of this is a bit silly to me.
That wasn't what the article stated. The article stated that the problem is that the new TLDs are so cheap as to be disposable, and the registration requirements are lax. The combination makes them attractive to criminals.
It's literally the first sentence of the article:
"Phishing attacks increased nearly 40 percent in the year ending August 2024, with much of that growth concentrated at a small number of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) — such as .shop, .top, .xyz — that attract scammers with rock-bottom prices and no meaningful registration requirements, new research finds."
That wasn't what the article stated. The article stated that the problem is that the new TLDs are so cheap as to be disposable, and the registration requirements are lax. The combination makes them attractive to criminals.
It's literally the first sentence of the article:
"Phishing attacks increased nearly 40 percent in the year ending August 2024, with much of that growth concentrated at a small number of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) — such as .shop, .top, .xyz — that attract scammers with rock-bottom prices and no meaningful registration requirements, new research finds."