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

41–50 of 122 posts

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#41

Post by d_theorist »

idiot99 wrote: post #30
d_theorist wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inst…

Anybody who doesn't like the way Google is publishing this information through its browser is free to choose to use another one. Or to turn it off.

There is naturally a tradeoff between the value of this information for avoiding dangerous sites, and the risk that Google might be abusing the power that goes with its role in publishing it. At the moment users are mostly deciding that the risk is worth it.

If Google becomes obviously abusive then users will have to re-assess that equation. But it's the users' decision to make; not ours.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#43

Post by emodendroket »

woogley wrote: post #29
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

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.

How would you know? The results are different for everyone, aren't they?

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#44

Post by woogley »

emodendroket wrote: post #43
woogley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would you know? The results are different for everyone, aren't they?

There's some conjecture involved but I would be very surprised if Google actually sold AdWords for their own browser.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#45

Post by putasidemobile »

This is almost surely not content hosted on Google.com, but content hosted on sites which Google redirects to.

If Google serves a single malicious site as a linked result (or in a redirect) it will flag Google.com as hosting malicious content.

This has been the case for years now, also for other Google properties, like Youtube and DoubleClick.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#46

Post by sp332 »

emodendroket wrote: post #43
woogley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would you know? The results are different for everyone, aren't they?

For this search, there is exactly one ad. It's from Google and goes to the official site.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#48

Post by sp332 »

xomateix wrote: post #25
RGamma wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get two ads (edit: on duckduckgo) before any search results, one for googlechromeonline.com and one for downloadsem.com, both are spammy.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#49

Post by a3n »

jfoster wrote: post #35
a3n wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think oolongCat is complaining about the existence of an opinion; it's what they do with it that counts. In the case of search, they demote you. In Chrome, they very nearly block access to your site. If a site really is dangerous, fair enough, but imagine being a false positive and not having much recourse!

I wonder how Google got that much power?

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#50

Post by ocdtrekkie »

basch wrote: post #36
RGamma wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I tried a bunch of searches, it seemed like both sites had their chrome links cleaned up. (or google bought all the bing adspace) Bings pretopresult ad for firefox is still malware. Microsoft should be liable for this - http://imgur.com/b2VuRMP.jpg

It should. Though if search engines were actually held liable for every malware link they place above real results, Google would no longer be a profitable business. Just the fake banks Google puts in search ads alone...
Post reply on HN