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

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#111

Post by thewhitetulip »

dgacmu wrote: post #98
thewhitetulip wrote: post #72

Google is at a very influential position these days, everything is Google, and Facebook is trying it's damnest to become like Google. Google, for the most parts, is the Internet, chrome, gmail, search engine, android, good lord even walking robots! We are lucky that they g+ failed miserably :D Otherwise we'd not have Internet, we'd have Google, nothing in the world beyond it. Nobody to check it's power, except maybe…

You're getting downvoted because you're making an easily falsifiable claim. AWS hosts an absolutely staggering number of websites. Heck - DreamHost has 1.5 million sites. EIG, through a ton of subsidiary brands, hosts millions of sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group It may be surprising to those of us who hang out on HN, but Hotmail has over 360 million email customers. Yahoo (okay, okay…

"at least in the U.S." and you justify downvoting my thread.

When I said Google is the Internet, and you don't understand it, then I pity that you people have the ability to downvote comments on this site.

Not everyone in the world means literally, when I say GOogle is the Internet that means Google is so powerful a company that 90+% of search market is with them, yes doubleclick I am looking at you, gmail, youtube, android, chromebook, google books, self driving car, a robotic cheetah that runs 200 something km per hour. That is scary.

I am getting downvoted because the people who are downvoting don't understand what I am trying to say. yeah go ahead and downvote this and justify your actions. doesn't make the things I say less than the truth.

Every computer I see has google chrome and google as the default search engine, God knows they did a research I read which tells the gender of the person by the way the keep their phone in their hand, can't cite it here because I am short on time.

Google is scary. The kind of power they have, had it not been for the EU they would have been even more dangerous, thankfully and regretfully EU has authority only in the EU.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#112

Post by thewhitetulip »

dgacmu wrote: post #98
thewhitetulip wrote: post #72

Google is at a very influential position these days, everything is Google, and Facebook is trying it's damnest to become like Google. Google, for the most parts, is the Internet, chrome, gmail, search engine, android, good lord even walking robots! We are lucky that they g+ failed miserably :D Otherwise we'd not have Internet, we'd have Google, nothing in the world beyond it. Nobody to check it's power, except maybe…

You're getting downvoted because you're making an easily falsifiable claim. AWS hosts an absolutely staggering number of websites. Heck - DreamHost has 1.5 million sites. EIG, through a ton of subsidiary brands, hosts millions of sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group It may be surprising to those of us who hang out on HN, but Hotmail has over 360 million email customers. Yahoo (okay, okay…

This is the reason Steve Jobs hated social networks. had he been on a social network in 1980s telling everyone that "hey PCs are going to be a big deal ten-twenty years later" he'd have been ridiculed, and shown the The Dunning–Kruger effect, yeah know that.

Ultimately everything in life is an opinion, all that matters is we do what we feel is right and in general isn't outright incorrect, just because you people have the ability to downvote comments doesn't make you more informed than I am, especially when you don't understand what i am trying to say or i am not clear at what I say, that doesn't give you the right to be derogatory though, but this is HN and that behaviour is expected.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#113

Post by JimWestergren »

miket wrote: post #104
JimWestergren wrote: post #39

Also 4331 URLs removed from Google index [1] because of DMCA requests sent to Google: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright... [1] http://domainstats.io/tools/dmca

Was recently reported that Google receives 100K DMCA requests per hour: http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/7/11172516/google-takedown-re...

4331 URLs removed from the google.com domain. Sorry for not being clear.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#114

Post by JimWestergren »

JoblessWonder wrote: post #85
JimWestergren wrote: post #39

Also 4331 URLs removed from Google index [1] because of DMCA requests sent to Google: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright... [1] http://domainstats.io/tools/dmca

Is that it? I find that searching for almost any movie includes a message at the bottom that at least one result has been removed due to a take down notice.

4331 URLs removed from the google.com domain. Sorry for not being clear.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#115

Post by victorhooi »

tamana wrote: post #69
LaFolle wrote: post #9

Even, github.com is partially dangerous. "Dangerous websites have been sending visitors to this website, including: github.com/mgp25, github.com/racaljk, and github.com/100pcrack"

Yes , github hosts UGC which has a lot of spam/malware.

What is UGC, in this context?

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#116

Post by anon1385 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #59
anon1385 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>We're talking about Chrome

No we aren't. We are talking about the Google Safe Browsing service. They are different things. One is a web browser, the other is a blacklist that any software can use.

It's used by Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Together those make up a majority of browsers.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#117

Post by michaelmcmillan »

make3 wrote: post #103
plank wrote: post #23

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.

after all, Google once "sold" some guy the google.com domain by accident

If I remember correctly, that guy was an employee. Still no excuse though.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#118

Post by pessimizer »

piyush_soni wrote: post #56
pessimizer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> And you settle with a government which agrees to 'your' version of good and bad.

That's not how voting works. If the government agreed to my version of good or bad, the country would look a lot differently than it does.

> 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,

So you agree with me.

> doesn't mean there's an evil motive for everything they do.

No corporation has evil motives. I don't even know what that means. That it's trying to summon demons?

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#119

Post by [deleted] »

OJFord wrote: post #109
putasidemobile wrote: post #45

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.

Right, but it's still odd that other Google TLDs (as reported in this thread) are not flagged.

[deleted]

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#120

Post by piyush_soni »

pessimizer wrote: post #118
piyush_soni wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> And you settle with a government which agrees to 'your' version of good and bad. That's not how voting works. If the government agreed to my version of good or bad, the country would look a lot differently than it does. > 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, So you agree with m…

I don't know if you don't understand simple statements or you are pretending not to, to make some weird point. You vote for a government that promises things which are overall 'good' or 'least bad' according to you. And definitely, you have some version of good and bad you categorize people, and things with. Everyone has (if you don't, this discussion has no meaning). Google is doing the same, and there are people who find it very useful.

And I have no interest in explaining to you like 5 what is an evil corporation. Do a Google search.

Post reply on HN