Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

privatecaptcha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 394 posts

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#321

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Melatonic wrote: post #317
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rapidly becoming Always has been. Google was creating cartels like the "Open Handset Alliance" literally decades ago. Via their control of Chrome and Search which are both monopolies, Google holds absolute authority on how websites are rendered and if websites can be found.

Huge fan of Kagi so far - especially SmallWeb if you do want to find websites that probably would not hit the top of Google search results

I am a Kagi early adopter. ;) But the reality is what can be on the web is dictated by Google Search, because nothing survives if you can't find it on Google.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#322

Post by traderj0e »

vel0city wrote: post #289
Dylan16807 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seriously? That's our standard of what is a "monpoply"? No. That part of the post was answering your question about how it impacts people. Not what makes it a monopoly.

I'm asking what features force me to use Chrome instead of Firefox or Edge or Safari. I've yet to hear an answer other than it's advertised heavily and that it's popular.

There's nothing forcing you to use Chrome instead of Edge, but some websites don't work with Safari or Firefox because Google has pushed nonstandard stuff. And it's weirdly not only advanced WebWhatever stuff, but also some things that affects basic features like forms. Though sometimes they have a separate mobile site that was tested in iPhone Safari.

I find the discrepancy kinda minor though. It's enough that I have Chrome installed alongside Firefox and Safari, but not enough that I use it often. It used to be worse.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#323

Post by xerox13ster »

rishabhaiover wrote: post #121
nicce wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fine line between harassment and pointing of for socially bad actions. Harassment involves usually calling by names, making threats etc. You can definitely shame people with a diplomatic language.

I don't like this proposal but engineers should not be shamed for doing their regular jobs. We all do it in some form or the others.

Tell me you build stuff like this without telling me you build stuff like this.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#324

Post by mananaysiempre »

Terretta wrote: post #182
alex_duf wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing this stance a lot "this is obviously AI generated" Why? What's LLM generated? How can you tell? To me what's obvious is that our trust system is already breaking down. Commenters accusing each other of being AIs is also another example of this.

Look at the number of : per paragraph. What human puts two : in a single sentence? "One additional failure worth noting: one incident response professional in the HN thread, raised a concern that operates independently of the bot problem: …" The ersatz Ted Talk meets LinkedInfluencer rhythm of sentences, the throat clearing fillers as connective tissue… Or Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_A…

I do. I usually notice and try to rephrase, though.

(Also, you can pry my em dashes[1] from my cold, dead hands.)

[1] https://www.gally.net/miscellaneous/hn-em-dash-user-leaderbo... says mean 1.64, maximum 13 em dashes per pre-ChatGPT comment.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#325

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #309
vel0city wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's size and market power Finally one states something other than its a monopoly because it has market share or because its advertised heavily. Its a monopoly because it allegedly has market power . But does it, really? > If users could change but don't, the monopoly company still has huge power. Is it that it has power or just that its currently popular? I once again ask, what features actually force me to use Ch…

> I've asked many times, and yet everyone has refused to answer this core, critical part of the claim. It's a core, critical part of a monopoly abuse claim, not a monopoly claim. I don't want to get in that argument. They don't have some weird ultra low market power for their size. They're a monopoly.

[deleted]

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#326

Post by gruez »

ribtoks wrote: post #133
gruez wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why? What's LLM generated? How can you tell? Not the guy you're responding to, but: 1. The high number of (em) dashes is suspect, though it's unclear whether they manually replaced the em dashes or is actually human generated. 2. "One additional failure worth noting: one incident response professional in the HN thread, raised a concern that operates independently of the bot problem" feels out of place for a content…

> actually human generated Human written, not generated. > HN isn't popular enough to be invoked as a source Excuse me, what do you mean there? The author happens to read HN too.

>Excuse me, what do you mean there? The author happens to read HN too.

Read the rest of the comment. It's not suspect because it's referencing HN, it's suspect because of the way it's referencing HN. Specifically, its use of the phrase "the HN thread", even though it wasn't mentioned before. Maybe it's a editing gaff, but it's also consistent with how an LLM would write if presented with a list of sources.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#327

Post by DonThomasitos »

Gagarin1917 wrote: post #160
DonThomasitos wrote: post #105

We see the fundamental forces of capitalism at work: To justify valuation, Google needs to grow. When they feel a ceiling, they broaden their search to anything legal that makes customers pay - even if it contradicts their longterm interests. This created countless attack angles for startups. The good news: we already have a solution! Monopoly laws. In case of the internet, no company should be able to have this much…

>We see the fundamental forces of capitalism at work: To justify valuation, Google needs to grow. You’re confusing markets with capitalism. Market Socialism (the only reasonable kind) would have these same issues. If Google was owned by the workers instead of capitalists, it would still have incentive to grow. The worker owners would have the exact same incentives as current owners. The only difference would be who t…

I agree, thanks for clarification. I did not want to argue in favor of Socialism - my criticism here is that „free market correction instruments“ like antitrust, monopoly etc are absent.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#328

Post by bakugo »

dang wrote: post #318
bakugo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like the moderators are actively deleting comments that call out AI generated articles now. Grim. This comment will probably be deleted too.

What did you see that made you think that? (It's entirely untrue btw.) We haven't said anything specific about genai articles but if you've seen https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 it shouldn't be hard to extrapolate.

Both comments appeared as [dead] within a few minutes of being made, despite not appearing as [flagged].

They're visible now, but still. What caused them to appear as [dead] in the first place?

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#329

Post by hellojesus »

CalRobert wrote: post #220
EGreg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you see it closing all around you? It's not just Google. It's governments, corporations, all around the world, simultaneously. The noose is being tightened gradually, then all at once. And it's coming for all of us: https://community.qbix.com/t/increasing-state-of-surveillanc... The threats above interlock by design or convergence: Identity layer (1-5) creates the prerequisite for the others. Once identity is e…

Hell, even using cash feels like a minor form of dissent. And of course even if you leave your phone at home, your car will be scanned with ANPR wherever it goes. And if that fails, there's still your face to be tracked.

The cars themselves phone home all the time. You have to physically remove the transceiver to prevent it or run a jammer nonstop at the risk of a felony.

Re: Google Cloud Fraud Defence is just WEI repackaged

#330

Post by chadgpt2 »

janalsncm wrote: post #272
chadgpt2 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His solution is don't. Why would you? In fact, if you don't block the script that's running on one computer, the script operator won't need to run it on a botnet. I don't know RMS's solution to spam or DDoS which are the real problems.

> Why would you? Because controlling a large number of accounts can allow you to manipulate the algorithms on Web2.0 websites. For example, this one. If you don’t combat spammers the front page quickly gets filled up with garbage.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN