251–260 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whose should it be? Why would they be better than Google?
It would be individual users job to police what sites they go to. It would be hosting providers jobs to police the content of their hosters. The person who makes the search engine, and the browser, and the black list should not be one in the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if there are page monitoring utilities that can download the full html payload, render the page via a headless chrome browser, and then perform a diff against the content? Most landing pages are quite static, and like you said, it's about full page load, so measuring how long the entire page took to load, along with each asset's network request and subsequent content paints, you could get a pretty good idea…
I've seen automated testing tools for that. I was thinking about it for the future once I get other monitoring I want. I'm literally building this to be a monitoring tool I want to use. But you would have to make the montioring system aware of deployments or design changes. But those are the things that generally break things. But the key thing for me is the "goal" montioring. So for ecommerce it's orders but for oth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't get away with uploading malware to your Google drive without Google noticing. The no-no here is that this guy is operating a demo site that allows anonymous file uploads without policing the content that goes there. That's just mind blowingly dumb and ripe for abuse.
So you need a google quality malware detection filter to allow user content upload on your site? That's a pretty big barrier to entry. And I find it hard to believe that there isn't any malware or phishing content on any of the big content provider's properties.
Realistically, offering an anonymous demo is probably a bad idea, no matter how many conversions it gives you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really just feudalism. But how most parts of the world work
A secret set of rules, a single party that is the judge, jury and executioner, an opaque resolution process that involves backchannels rather than merit, and no oversight ? Is that really something to accept as inevitable ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't get away with uploading malware to your Google drive without Google noticing. The no-no here is that this guy is operating a demo site that allows anonymous file uploads without policing the content that goes there. That's just mind blowingly dumb and ripe for abuse.
So you need a google quality malware detection filter to allow user content upload on your site? That's a pretty big barrier to entry. And I find it hard to believe that there isn't any malware or phishing content on any of the big content provider's properties.
No, but IF you allow people to anonymously upload malware to your site, Google-quality malware detection filters will absolutely do what they were designed to do and detect the malware on your site.
I just don't understand the people insisting on arguing that somehow this was a false positive. Google was right! This site was hosting malware! It's true it wasn't "intentionally" hosting malware, and that it was designed for benign purposes.
Which is to say, you are demanding that Google forgive this site automatically based on intent and not evidence. And sadly, while Google may have Google-quality malware detection filters, they haven't yet cracked the nut of thought crime detection.
They can remove your YouTube account, app, entire Google account or even your website at any time and you can only make guesses why did that happen, because they always make the rules really vague and it's never clear what is or is not allowed. And even when they do admit the mistake and get you back up, they still won't explain anything and nothing is ever fixed. Thank you Google, very cool.
The reason it is made vague is because there are people who will set their site up so it technically passes the rules but it certainly does not pass the spirit of what was trying to be done by the rules. By making it opaque they do get to cast a wider net and keep those a$$hats from harming others but they certainly catch other fish with that net.
What are your saying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you need a google quality malware detection filter to allow user content upload on your site? That's a pretty big barrier to entry. And I find it hard to believe that there isn't any malware or phishing content on any of the big content provider's properties.
> So you need a google quality malware detection filter to allow user content upload on your site? That's a pretty big barrier to entry. No, but IF you allow people to anonymously upload malware to your site, Google-quality malware detection filters will absolutely do what they were designed to do and detect the malware on your site. I just don't understand the people insisting on arguing that somehow this was a fals…
I am genuinely curious how you would prevent your site from being blocked like this? Sure in this case it was a demo, but what if it was an actual image hosting service that required login? What's to stop a bad actor from creating an account and uploading malicious content. Maybe you even have some filter that does image recognition on the images and tries to detect if it is phishing. But unless your filter is able to catch the exact same content that google's malware detector uses, there's still a chance that you'll miss something that google finds, and starts blocking your site.
So... The proposed mitigation is to use multiple top-level domains. At the same time, third party cookies probably won't be around much longer and already don't work for some browsers, so if you want to share state between pages, you need them to be on the same domain (but can be subdomains). There is no winning scenario here.
From what I see Google should now be considered an active threat. You have to design your system knowing they will eventually act against you, either your domains or your accounts. And your chances to get it fixed are slim, unless you’re able to get some public outrage. Really a disgusting company.
>Really a disgusting company that's quite a strong word. For the average Joe, google has immesurably improved their internet experience. The vast majority of people are perfectly happy with google and love it for gmail, youtube etc. Just because they are good at destroying some peoples lives, most users don't really care at all. You might find it hard to recruit supporters just because google are horrible sometimes.
> ....
> I believe that somebody signed up for our service (it’s free to sign up) and then uploaded a malicious file on our test storage and abused this feature.
Step 1 - Allow random users to dump random files onto your website.
Step 2 - Random users dump random files on your website.
Step 3 - Create an outrage, OMG, OMG!!! Google killed my site!!!
Step 4 - Post on HN, generate more outrage and sympathy
Step 5 - When the real thing comes to light, oh yeah, I did allow random users to upload random files to my website. Let me write a blog and tell what lessons I learned and still claim "How Google killed my site".
Step 6 - Kachinnng, look at all the attention and internet points me and my website earned!!!
We had a similar episode where this guy https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dcurtis created an uproar and outrage about Apple only to be proven[1] that he was the one at fault and not Apple. Now that the reality came to light, he's no where to be seen, not even an apology. We'll see him back during his next episode of outrage and attention seeking.
[1] https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/03/apple-card-apple-id-unrelated...