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

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#51

Post by shawabawa3 »

joncampbelldev wrote: post #34
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

Same as peer comments, this does not occur for me on any of my google accounts nor on an anonymous search. I think you may have adware.

It was on a fresh windows 10 install, so unlikely. Of course, now it isn't happening any more. Either they fixed it, it's intermittent, or I'm misremembering

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#52

Post by pessimizer »

piyush_soni wrote: post #18
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 dislike it just because you dislike it. Your argument is as good (/bad?) as saying "Why does government get to make laws and decide what's good and what's bad?" In any society, we have some basic rules of 'good' and 'bad', and it's totally ok to test a website on those measures. Like a website secretively installing malware on your machine is bad . In a parallel world, that might be a good thing.

> Why does government get to make laws and decide what's good and what's bad?

We do ask this. It's the entire reason we vote in representative democracies. It's absolutely nothing like the question you're replying to.

> In any society, we have some basic rules of 'good' and 'bad', and it's totally ok to test a website on those measures.

The basic rules of societies for what is 'good' and 'bad' about websites is something that you have entirely invented here in order to make an empty, unnecessarily dismissive argument.

Here's my answer: Google decides because our governments have abdicated responsibility for regulation or enforcement. Therefore, the responsibility is taken up by the groups in the best position to exploit it for money.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#53

Post by basch »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #50
basch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

microsoft writes the operating system they are infecting. then people with older computers think their hardware is too slow and buy a new one.

how can they not use vm's and heuristics to click all their ads and see if it infects their own operating system, before approving the ads, and then rechecking them every so many clicks?

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#54

Post by anon1385 »

d_theorist wrote: post #41
idiot99 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

>At the moment users are mostly deciding that the risk is worth it.

Users aren't making a conscious decision. Browser vendors are making the decision for them. Most people don't change the default settings, especially something that claims to make your browsing "safer".

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#55

Post by 01Michael10 »

sp332 wrote: post #48
xomateix wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have some type of malware or rogue extension on your device. I would look into that...

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#56

Post by piyush_soni »

pessimizer wrote: post #52
piyush_soni wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dislike it just because you dislike it. Your argument is as good (/bad?) as saying "Why does government get to make laws and decide what's good and what's bad?" In any society, we have some basic rules of 'good' and 'bad', and it's totally ok to test a website on those measures. Like a website secretively installing malware on your machine is bad . In a parallel world, that might be a good thing.

> Why does government get to make laws and decide what's good and what's bad? We do ask this. It's the entire reason we vote in representative democracies. It's absolutely nothing like the question you're replying to. > In any society, we have some basic rules of 'good' and 'bad', and it's totally ok to test a website on those measures. The basic rules of societies for what is 'good' and 'bad' about websites is somet…

> We do ask this. It's the entire reason we vote in representative democracies

And you settle with a government which agrees to 'your' version of good and bad. But somehow, Google is not entitled to its opinion even if for trying to possibly make a safer internet.

> you have entirely invented here in order to make an empty, unnecessarily dismissive argument

On the contrary, I'd say you have invented your reasons for why Google is doing it (i.e., 'to exploit it for money') without any evidence. Of course, Google is here for profit, doesn't mean there's an evil motive for everything they do.

Of course, your judgement of good v/s bad is for good, and their judgement of good v/s bad is for bad. ;)

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#57

Post by anon1385 »

woogley wrote: post #44
emodendroket wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They certainly have done in the past: http://i.imgur.com/yVIMYKO.png

Taken from a comment I wrote a couple of years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7335401

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#58

Post by ceejayoz »

woogley wrote: post #44
emodendroket wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Deliberately? No, of course not.

They can't just ban the word "Chrome" from AdWords, though. Spammers/malware authors are very good at figuring out what's needed to slip through the automated systems.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#59

Post by ceejayoz »

anon1385 wrote: post #54
d_theorist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

>At the moment users are mostly deciding that the risk is worth it. Users aren't making a conscious decision. Browser vendors are making the decision for them. Most people don't change the default settings, especially something that claims to make your browsing "safer".

> Most people don't change the default settings...

We're talking about Chrome, a browser that comes as the default setting on zero major operating systems.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#60

Post by sp332 »

01Michael10 wrote: post #55
sp332 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You have some type of malware or rogue extension on your device. I would look into that...

That only affects DDG and not Google or Bing? That doesn't seem likely. You sure you're not running an adblocker?

(Also it's rogue, not rouge.)

Post reply on HN