Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

Post by Eisenstein » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 2:31 PM UTC

Teever wrote: post #466

MrDarcy wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

File a small claim for damages up to 10,000 to 20,000 USD depending on your local statues. It’s actually pretty quick and easy. They cannot defend themselves with lawyers, so a director usually has to show up.

I've been thinking for a while that a coordinated and massive action against a specific company by people all claiming damages in small claims court would be a very effective way of bringing that company to heel.

Post by mcv » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 2:32 PM UTC

chrismorgan wrote: post #431

dmoreno wrote: post #288

Happened to me last week. One morning we wake up and the whole company website does not work. Not advice with some time to fix any possible problem, just blocked. We gave very bad image to our clients and users, and had to give explanations of a false positive from google detection. The culprit, according to google search console, was a double redirect on our web email domain (/ -> inbox -> login). After just moving…

> The culprit, according to google search console, was a double redirect on our web email domain (/ -> inbox -> login). I find it hard to believe that the double redirect itself tripped it: multiple redirects in a row is completely normal—discouraged in general because it hurts performance, but you encounter them all the time . For example, http://foo.example → https://foo.example → https://www.foo.example (http → ht…

Post by conartist6 » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

daoboy wrote: post #445

conartist6 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure, but it's on my mind. I own what I think are the key protocols for the future of browsers and the web, and nobody knows it yet. I'm not committed to forking the web by any means, but I do think I have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remake the system if I were determined to and knew how to remake it into something better. If you want to talk more, reach out!

Intriguing comment, but your username does not inspire confidence.

Post by mrtesthah » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 2:43 PM UTC

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #458

nucleative wrote: post #424

We really need an internet Bill of Rights. Google has too much power to delete your company from existence with no due process or recourse. If any company controls some (high) percentage of a particular market, say web browsers, search, or e-commerce, or social media, the public's equal access should start to look more like a right and less like an at-will contract. 30 years ago, if a shop had a falling out with the…

It’s almost as if those companies have country like powers. Maybe they should be subject to same limitations like First Amendment etc.

Post by MetaWhirledPeas » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 2:44 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #449

Gormo wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that putting locks on your front door will reduce the chance of your house getting robbed, but if you do get robbed, the fact that your front door wasn't locked does not in any way absolve the thief for his conduct. Similarly, if an organization deploys a public system that engages in libel and tortious interference, the fact that jumping through technical hoops might make it less likely to be affected by t…

> mitigating false positives First & foremost I really need to emphasise that, despite the misleading article title, this was not a false positive. Google flagged this domain for legitimate reasons. I think there's likely a conversation to be had about messaging - Chrome's warning page seems a little scarier than it should be, Firefox's is more measured in its messaging. But in terms of the API service Google are pro…