Live data from Hacker News

Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

immich.app

501–510 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#501
post #485
post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it wouldn't work. they'd hire some minimum wage person to go to all of them and just read the terms and conditions you agreed to that include language about arbitration or whatever

How did they agree to those terms?

Probably includes something insane like "By allowing your website to be crawled by google spiders, you agree to the following terms...."

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#503
post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or enforce antitrust. As firearm enthusiasts like to say, "Enforce the laws we already have".

We need to fix the jurisprudence around anti-trust. > No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting comme…

The issue is that current law around monopolies defines them from the wrong angle.

Instead of taking a consumer-centric / competition perspective, they should be defined in terms of market share (with markets broadly defined from a consumer perspective).

>10% = some minimal interoperability and reporting requirements

>25% = serious interoperability requirements

>35% = severe and audited interoperability requirements, with a method for gaps to be proposed by competitors, with the end goal of making increasing market share past this point difficult

Close the "but it's free to consumers (because we monetize them in other ways)" loophole that every 90s+ internet business used: instead focus on ensuring competition as measured by market share.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#504
post #480
post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be glorious if everybody unjustly screwed by Google did that. Barring antitrust enforcement, this may be the only way to force them to behave.

it wouldn't work. they'd hire some minimum wage person to go to all of them and just read the terms and conditions you agreed to that include language about arbitration or whatever

Terms of service, written by a corporation, do not overrule the law, of a country.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Force interoperability. In 2009 I could run Pidgin and load messages from AIM, FB Messages, Yahoo... Where did that go? I suspect the EU will be the first region to push the big tech companies on this.

In 2025 you can use Beeper (or run your own local Matrix server with the opensource bridges) and get the same result with WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Discord, Google Messages, etc. etc.

isn't beeper non-free? there aren't that many decent matrix bridges.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will take the same or less amount of time, to get where we are with current Web. What we have is the best sim env to see how stuff shape up. So fixing it should be the aim, avoiding will get us on similar spirals. We'll just go on circles.

Having a decade of fresh air is also a good incentive regardless of how it ends

I don't know, it is a lot of effort for a decade fresh air. Then you will notice same policies implemented since they will take reference to how people solved it in the past.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#507
post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone with a small business that applied for Venmo Business account (which is the main payment method in their community industry) and Venmo refused to open the account and didn't provide any reason as to why saying that they have the right to choose to refuse providing the service, which they do . But all the competitors of that business in the area do have a Venmo and take payment this way so it is basical…

Same thing with Paypal - I opened a business account, was able to do one transaction and was shut down for fraud. I tested a donation to myself. Under $10. Lifetime ban. fuck paypal

That’s not unique to PayPal. Pretty much any payment processor that detects a proprietor paying themselves is going to throw up a red flag for circular cash flow fraud and close the account. Bank-operated payment processors are often slower to catch it, but they will also boot you for this.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#508
I believe that Jellyfin, Immish, and NextCloud login pages are automatically flagged as dangerous by Google. What's more, I suspect that Google is somehow collecting data from its browser - Chrome.

Google flagged my domain as dangerous once. I do host Jellyfin, Immish, and NextCloud. I run an IP whitelist on the router. All packets from IPs that are not whitelisted are dropped. There are no links to my domain on the internet. At any time, there are 2-3 IPs belonging to me and my family that can load the website. I never whitelisted Google IPs.

How on earth did Google manage to determine that my domain is dangerous?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been doing this for at least 15 years and it’s the first I heard of this. Fun learning new things so often but I never once heard of the public suffix list. That said, I do know the other best practices mentioned elsewhere

First rule of the public suffix list...

I think what gets me more is I don't see an easy way to add suffixes to the list. I'm sure if I dig I can figure it out but you'd think given how its used they'd have an obvious step by step guide on the website

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#510
post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing with Paypal - I opened a business account, was able to do one transaction and was shut down for fraud. I tested a donation to myself. Under $10. Lifetime ban. fuck paypal

That’s not unique to PayPal. Pretty much any payment processor that detects a proprietor paying themselves is going to throw up a red flag for circular cash flow fraud and close the account. Bank-operated payment processors are often slower to catch it, but they will also boot you for this.

real payment processors also you just call on the phone and they fix it. That's not a real problem. we do test orders on many go lives per year and never see this. Yes there are sandboxes, but you always gotta test real transactions by the end.
Post reply on HN