@odr_k4tana wrote:
"A website that does not pretend to be a website the user has an account in by definition cannot be a phishing website."
contradicts your next sentence:
"Phishing mimics electronic communication to trick people to divulge sensitive information."
Ignoring whatever definition of phishing, the problem is that, GIVEN A DOMAIN NAME, people have no reliable way to find out whether a website is reliable.
That includes fake postal websites, faje webshops, fake donation websites, fake signup websites, fake "you have to re-video-ident for org. X, we take care of that", fake Avast websites (the downladed executable typically is Teamviewer or Anydesk, including their mobile versions) and fake usher sites (Gerichtsvollzieher - there are a lot of fake webites stating that Dutch people have to pay money to GGN, see https://www.ggn.nl/contact/phishing/).
You are 100% right if you state that some "document", signed by a TTP (Trusted Third Party) and proof of possession of a private key by a website, DOES NOT guarantee reliability of the website.
However, you are 100% wrong about AUTHENTICITY: an amount of reliability of which entity (identified in such a way that you know whether you can sue them, and what your chances will be - if the entity is not in Russia) is RESPONSIBLE for the reliability of information, such as a website.