[jtmckinley]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a hidden iframe, people used to use them to do legitimate AJAX-like stuff. If the domain doesn't even resolve to an IP there's certainly no point in having it there and it can't be doing anything bad unless it resolves. The only concern I can think of is if people assume it's OK and then the DNS is changed some time in the future so that it does resolve after users have become sanguine about the iframe being there AND then something malicious is done via that iframe. It certainly doesn't give one a warm fuzzy having it there and if the site owner cares about being flagged as suspicious he/she should remove it as VAX said.

Also VAX is correct about it being really easy to get on and really hard to get off blacklists. The company I used to work for did mass emails for U.S. car dealerships to their legitimate customers (email addresses defined by repair order feeds we got from dealer service departments whose customers willingly gave their email addresses) for sending service coupons and such. Ironically, relative to this particular context, one blacklist we really had trouble being removed from was a blacklist hosted in Russia. The blacklists I'm referring to regarding my former employer were spam blacklists, but the issue is similar for websites.

On the other hand, conflating Google blacklisting this site to anything the current U.S. administration is doing is pretty silly, I'll just chalk that up to VAX's need to vent for whatever reason. The U.S. 1st Amendment is alive and well as far as I can tell, besides there's nothing in there about the internet, the 'net obviously didn't exist. I'm all for the FCC implementing some net neutrality provisions, but of course that's another topic altogether.