Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google.com partially dangerous

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 122 posts

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#21

Post by a3n »

oolongCat wrote: post #11

I really really dislike this. Why does google get to decide which websites are good and which are not. Unless someone subscribes to this service google should do what it does best, search. One day they decide everyone should be mobile friendly, the next day they decide which sites are bad and which are not, what more? Every single day, google is giving me more reason to use alternative search engines.

You're basically complaining that someone has information, or an agenda, or even a mere opinion, and has published it.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#22

Post by userbinator »

d_theorist wrote: post #16
oolongCat wrote: post #11

I really really dislike this. Why does google get to decide which websites are good and which are not. Unless someone subscribes to this service google should do what it does best, search. One day they decide everyone should be mobile friendly, the next day they decide which sites are bad and which are not, what more? Every single day, google is giving me more reason to use alternative search engines.

Nobody is being forced to any attention to their pronouncements. The only reason they are of any relevance is that a lot of people freely choose to use services and software that incorporate them.

The concern is primarily because Google has, to many people, become "the Internet itself" --- it is in a position of immense power to control what the majority of the Internet-using population sees. This isn't quite the same situation as some random white/blacklisting site's opinion.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#23

Post by plank »

Good* for Google to spot their own website being not completely safe! Wonder if they did click on https://www.google.com/webmasters/hacked/ themselves to see how to get Google.com unhacked.... ;-) * Actually, I think it IS good that there is no 'whitelist' of domains which are surely safe, and that it checks even the company's own main website.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#24

Post by RGamma »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #19
maze-le wrote: post #7

> Attackers on this site might try to trick you to download software or steal your information Thats an awful description of googles business model, but partly true...

Well I tried to download chrome yesterday, and you STILL get www.downloadchromenow.com and other spam site adverts at the top of the results, which absolutely serve malware/spyware Until they sort out their ads it's true, it is a dangerous site

On Google? If I enter "Chrome download" there, I get Google's own page as top result. However if you were to do the same with Bing (such as you probably would if you used Microsoft's browser downloader (Internet Explorer), which has Bing as default) you get the typical spam adverts at the top.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#25

Post by xomateix »

RGamma wrote: post #24
shawabawa3 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I tried to download chrome yesterday, and you STILL get www.downloadchromenow.com and other spam site adverts at the top of the results, which absolutely serve malware/spyware Until they sort out their ads it's true, it is a dangerous site

On Google? If I enter "Chrome download" there, I get Google's own page as top result. However if you were to do the same with Bing (such as you probably would if you used Microsoft's browser downloader (Internet Explorer), which has Bing as default) you get the typical spam adverts at the top.

Just for the record, I quickly tried duckduckgo and bing (using !bang) and the first result I got from both the official chrome webpage.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#27

Post by yread »

maze-le wrote: post #8
nerdponx wrote: post #6

I was very tempted to click on those Google group links, but I didn't have the balls.

Stangeley, 7b726aeb-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com is considered "Not dangerous". see: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagn...

Even though "Some pages on this website install malware on visitors' computers."

Doesn't seem to work very well

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#28

Post by nxzero »

Funny, everyone knows Google is dangerous.

In all seriousness though, they've got one of the largest public facing systems in the world. Given the surface area and traffic volumes, it's surprising that the don't have more issues than they do.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#29

Post by woogley »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #19
maze-le wrote: post #7

> Attackers on this site might try to trick you to download software or steal your information Thats an awful description of googles business model, but partly true...

Well I tried to download chrome yesterday, and you STILL get www.downloadchromenow.com and other spam site adverts at the top of the results, which absolutely serve malware/spyware Until they sort out their ads it's true, it is a dangerous site

Like the other peer comments, this does not show up for me. I'm afraid there's a good chance you already have some malware (or at least a rogue extension) that is inserting ads into your pages.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#30

Post by idiot99 »

d_theorist wrote: post #16
oolongCat wrote: post #11

I really really dislike this. Why does google get to decide which websites are good and which are not. Unless someone subscribes to this service google should do what it does best, search. One day they decide everyone should be mobile friendly, the next day they decide which sites are bad and which are not, what more? Every single day, google is giving me more reason to use alternative search engines.

Nobody is being forced to any attention to their pronouncements. The only reason they are of any relevance is that a lot of people freely choose to use services and software that incorporate them.

Yes, they are.

In Chrome and firefox, if google decides your website isn't up to scratch for some random reason, then visitors will see a big scary red warning and be turned away.

Yes, in theory you could get people to use a browser that doesn't incorporate Google censorship, but that's becoming a big ask.

If your website does become blacklisted by Google, good luck finding out why. They won't tell you, and will instead make you click on a "request review" button a million times while you change things to see if it floats their boat.

Isn't it slightly worrying to have the entity who decides if websites are "safe" or not, also have a monopoly on online advertising? What's to stop them blacklisting sites that use competitors advertising? They could claim that it benefits the users some how, whilst squashing any hint of competition.

Google has become the absolute gatekeeper, and (To me at least) it's a very very sad state of affairs. The www used to be free and open.

Post reply on HN