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

Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

uploader.win

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 296 posts

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#261

Post by sumedh »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #226
gambiting wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Absolutely hard disagree. To give you an example of this working well: In some countries(UK) regulators recognized that you cannot operate in the society without a bank account. So a rule was made that a bank cannot close down your bank account without a court order. They can block your access to nearly all other services, block all of your cards, but at the end of the day, you cannot lose access to your basic ba…

> you cannot lose access to your basic bank account and money in that account unless a judge says otherwise. "Losing access to the money in that account" is blatantly stealing from you. It's should be obvious that no company should be able to do this under any circumstances, but that is a separate issue from the question of adequate competition. You still need competition because a monopoly can find an unlimited numb…

> Which allows banks to remain an uncompetitive

How exactly is a bank uncompetitive with this regulation?

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#262

Post by jitbit »

rossdavidh wrote: post #179

So, clearly Google has too much power over the internet, it's arbitrary and opaque, etc. I agree. However, I think it is worth pointing out that: 1) malware is often very aggressive and fast-spreading, and once it's on a user's computer it's hard to get off, therefore... 2) the system to detect it and stop access to the site has to be automated, not a human-in-the-loop system that might take hours or days to shut off…

It's not just Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook too. Our website was recently flagged by Facebook's ML [1], and the only way to "unban" it was to find ways to contact a human being inside.

PS. Twitter still does not allow me to share links to OP's website.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25546868

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#263

Post by draebek »

arp242 wrote: post #206
rossdavidh wrote: post #179

So, clearly Google has too much power over the internet, it's arbitrary and opaque, etc. I agree. However, I think it is worth pointing out that: 1) malware is often very aggressive and fast-spreading, and once it's on a user's computer it's hard to get off, therefore... 2) the system to detect it and stop access to the site has to be automated, not a human-in-the-loop system that might take hours or days to shut off…

I absolutely agree, and the same applies to things like moderating YouTube and such. The scale is mind-boggling, and people will do anything to get past any measures you put in place. It's a hard problem to solve, and I feel people are too quick to jump to the "Google bad" bandwagon. But that being said, by far the biggest problem is just the lack of recourse and communication. Compare this to email spam prevention a…

I was about to comment on your example of talking to SpamHaus, but I misremembered and was thinking of SPEWS instead:

> One common criticism is that there was no way to contact SPEWS. According to the SPEWS FAQ: "Q41: How does one contact SPEWS? A41: One does not..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_Prevention_Early_Warning_...

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#264

Post by draebek »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #224
thayne wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely there is a better way to address malicious content than blocking the entire domain. It also doesn't seem like sites like Facebook, Reddit, Youtube, Google photos, etc. run into this problem, even though they allow user uploaded content so there is some kind of bias against smaller companies.

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.

FWIW I have been sent several phishing sites running on Google lately. (Can't remember if it was Drive or Sites—is Sites even around still?)

About half of them are taken down by the time I get to them. The other half, I've had to report myself.

I realize, however, that these are not malware.

(Funnily enough, I think all of the attempts I was able to view were trying to phish O365 creds.)

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#265

Post by marshmallow_12 »

dgellow wrote: post #259
marshmallow_12 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Other people may have a different opinion. I personally find the company disgusting. A horrible company can bring value to a lot of people. I would still find the company horrible.

you are not going to persuade anyone by broadcasting your personal findings.

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#266

Post by matsemann »

whiner wrote: post #260

> We have a live demo on our home where people can upload a test file. The demo is a way for users to actually see how the uploader will look in their own apps. It's a way for users to test drive the site without actually signing up. > .... > 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 us…

What an uncharitable and strawman-y way of summarizing the events.. The fact that you felt the need to make a new account for posting this should've been a sign that the way you phrase it is uncool.

The discussion about what power Google, Apple etc wields are still worth having.

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#267

Post by dgellow »

marshmallow_12 wrote: post #265
dgellow wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other people may have a different opinion. I personally find the company disgusting. A horrible company can bring value to a lot of people. I would still find the company horrible.

you are not going to persuade anyone by broadcasting your personal findings.

I’m not trying to persuade.

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#268

Post by marshmallow_12 »

dgellow wrote: post #267
marshmallow_12 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are not going to persuade anyone by broadcasting your personal findings.

I’m not trying to persuade.

then your comment helps nobody which is against the guidelines.

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#269

Post by PeterisP »

fefe23 wrote: post #169
matthewheath wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK at least, these consequences (website going offline / certificate warning / unsearchable in the search engine) would likely be deemed "pure economic loss" following Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] QB 27 and Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 where the Court of Appeal and House of Lords respectively held that unless some sort of physical harm was suffered to…

I'm guessing the web site has telemetry and analytics and can show the conversion rate going down. If the web site sells something, you could even put a dollar amount on the damage. I'm probably misunderstanding your argument here, but if, say, Google steals your bike that would be purely economic damage. Surely the UK legal system would still punish that...!?

Stealing your bike is an inherently illegal action, so the culprit is also liable for losses caused by that.

Having a browser you develop show "we don't like this site" is not illegal per se; and by default if something you have the right to do causes a loss to someone else, that's their problem - for example, if I put out a new excellent product for sale at a great price, that causes clear, measurable and provable economic damage to my competitors, possibly even bankrupting them, but that's their problem, not mine, because I did nothing wrong and did not owe them any duty to preserve their profits.

There is the concept of "tort" which may apply for such losses, but that generally requires specific intent (which is absent here), negligence (which requires the existence of some obligation or duty of care, which IMHO is absent here, Google has no obligation to show your site correctly in Chrome) or the narrow cases where strict liability applies, which also is absent here - the parent post goes into detail of why in this particular case a tort claim is likely to not succeed.

Re: Thanks HN: Lessons learned after Google nearly killed my site

#270

Post by gambiting »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #226
gambiting wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Absolutely hard disagree. To give you an example of this working well: In some countries(UK) regulators recognized that you cannot operate in the society without a bank account. So a rule was made that a bank cannot close down your bank account without a court order. They can block your access to nearly all other services, block all of your cards, but at the end of the day, you cannot lose access to your basic ba…

> you cannot lose access to your basic bank account and money in that account unless a judge says otherwise. "Losing access to the money in that account" is blatantly stealing from you. It's should be obvious that no company should be able to do this under any circumstances, but that is a separate issue from the question of adequate competition. You still need competition because a monopoly can find an unlimited numb…

>>Which allows banks to remain an uncompetitive yet inherently necessary market.

I'm really curious what you mean here. Banks(here in UK) are stupidly competitve, there's constant offers and incentives to switch, I cannot imagine anyone in this country thinking "oh I would switch but they can't close my account so I won't".

>>It's should be obvious that no company should be able to do this under any circumstances

Are you familiar with a small company known as PayPal? Where they can lock your account for 6 months without providing any reason whatsoever and you don't have access to your funds? You can't dismiss a real issue by just saying "it should be obvious". Sure, it's obvious but the only way we stop this from happening is through regulation.

Post reply on HN