Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site • Hacker News Board

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#121

Post by merpnderp » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #83

colordrops wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNC Leaked emails are not interesting, but a plagiarized paragraph by Trump's wife is interesting? Are you saying that politicians and political parties do not wield power and influence and do nothing to influence the media? The main purpose of politics is to wield power and influence, and the media is core to this. Are you saying that media is unbiased despite the fact that they are on record contributing to particu…

Edit: I'm being downvoted pretty heavily on this, but I'm not entirely sure why. I didn't even mention Trump's wife. DNC Leaked emails are not interesting, but a plagiarized paragraph by Trump's wife is interesting? Hu? The DNC email leaks are much more interesting than the plagiarized paragraph in Melania Trump. Neither are particularly interesting in the scheme of things though. The plagiarized paragraph shows that…

"The plagiarized paragraph shows that the Trump campaign isn't very well organized. I think most knew that."

Compared to who? Hillary's #stealthebern campaign or the 2007/8 plagiarism scandals with Obama? Joe Biden has some serious scandals as well.

If the media weren't pushing a certain angle, all these scandals would have been kept in context. Instead one line from a politician's wife's speechwriter now means he's running a "campaign that isn't very well organized."

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#122

Post by phelix001 » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #47

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

And the big upside to the NSA revelations is that people are starting to question their government and the corporatocracy that runs it. If you think Google is a 100% beneficent corporation, you gonna have a bad time.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#123

Post by AWildDHHAppears » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

I don't think there's anything to see here. Google now tags it as "safe." The mechanism worked; the website administrators removed the malware, and the warning was removed.

See! Everything works in a rational way. There's no conspiracy.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#124

Post by AWildDHHAppears » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

I don't think there's anything to see here. Google now tags it as "safe." The mechanism worked; the website administrators removed the malware, and the warning was removed.

See! Everything works in a rational way. There's no conspiracy.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#125

Post by smoyer » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 1:58 PM UTC

As of approximately 1000 EDT (US) on 07/23/2016, the link above gives the status of wikileaks.org as "Not Dangerous".

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#126

Post by brute » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 1:59 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #47

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

Remember when over night VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, the Bank of America and Western Union refused to transfer money to Wikileaks? When Wikileaks mirrors were thrown off of Amazon servers? That was 2010/2011, 2½ years before Snowden.

Not saying your explanation is wrong but it did not take Snowden to make such theories plausible.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#127

Post by throw2016 » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

This really doesn't matter. The kind of people who are concerned about the information revealed by wikileaks, Snowden, Manning and the burgeoning surveillance infrastructure have little reason to trust what Google says or does.

What seems off is the default kneejerk response especially in places like HN where one would assume a far more informed audience - working in the industry which is spearheading this - to brush things under the carpet or make discredited, desperate and increasingly irrational references to conpiracy theorists.

There have always been conspiracy theorists and always will be, but the current narrative on surveillance has moved so well beyond that point that to have this discussion tarred by these tired and banal references to conspiracy theorists is completely disingenious and makes those making these arguments look out of touch.

If you know what has been revealed so far it should not be difficult to engage with some degree of seriousness at the issues at hand without immediately resorting to strawmen.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#128

Post by throw2016 » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 2:43 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #47

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories.

Where everyone else see upsides in public interest and greater transparency from leaks by Snowden, Manning, Drake and others at great personal cost to themselves you apparently are able to overlook all of that to see a downside.

There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

And you are able to make this blanket statement with this incredible amount of confidence because? I am guessing only an official authorized response from Google can take this tone and be credible.

Given what we know wouldn't the default logical position be one of scepticism and engaging credibly with the facts at hand or a blanket dismissal of scepticism as conpiracy theorists?

As far as surveillance is concerned we are well beyond that stage and these kneejerk references to conspiracy theories and theorists seem tired, disingenious and incredibly out of touch.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#129

Post by emn13 » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 3:26 PM UTC

wwwdonohue wrote: post #116

nl wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: I'm being downvoted pretty heavily on this, but I'm not entirely sure why. I didn't even mention Trump's wife. DNC Leaked emails are not interesting, but a plagiarized paragraph by Trump's wife is interesting? Hu? The DNC email leaks are much more interesting than the plagiarized paragraph in Melania Trump. Neither are particularly interesting in the scheme of things though. The plagiarized paragraph shows that…

The DNC emails show that the DNC actively nurtured relationships with reporters that went against the basics of journalistic ethics. They show that the DNC coordinated with the Hillary campaign to come up with good anti-Bernie stunts (planting an audience member to, i.e., ask if he believed in God). They show a consistent and far-reaching effort not just to "favor" Hillary, as you say, but to ensure that she would wi…

Well, "interesting..." Is it more interesting than the fact that the candidate can't follow secrecy rules? Is it more interesting than the fact that those rules are so unreasonable that it's been decades-long implied policy to ignore them? Is it more more interesting than the much more blatant partiality in the only opposition party when it comes to picking candidates (not that I blame them)?

So, the DNC was caught politicking. It's perhaps not very nice, but is it surprising? Is it illegal? Is it particularly egregious? Frankly, if the worst they did was prefer clinton over sanders, they've got surprisingly little dirty laundry (or, more plausibly: they don't email about particularly questionable ideas).

None of this sounds like a conspiracy; it sounds like business as usual, and rather boring at that - at least to most people. If you're in a position to affect the composition of the DNC, perhaps it's little more relevant. And if you support(ed) Sanders, you might feel justifiably angry (although planting audience members to ask questions that are bound to come up in the election proper anyhow doesn't really strike me as high up the scale of nastiness). And of course, perhaps there's something else in those mails that is newsworthy.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#130

Post by adrenalinelol » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 3:37 PM UTC

AWildDHHAppears wrote: post #123

I don't think there's anything to see here. Google now tags it as "safe." The mechanism worked; the website administrators removed the malware, and the warning was removed. See! Everything works in a rational way. There's no conspiracy.

Eric Schmidt got spooked we were onto his trilateral commission connections!!!111

/s