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

Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

immich.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#331

Post by BSDobelix »

Nextgrid wrote: post #329
BSDobelix wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What i really don't understand at least here in Europe the advertising partner (adsense) must investigate at least minimally whether the advertising is illegal or fraudulent, i understand that sites.google etc are under "safe harbor" but that's not the point with adsense since people from google "click" the publish button and also get money to publish that ad.

The law is only for plebs like you and me. Companies get a pass. I'm still amazed how deploying spyware would've rightfully landed you in jail a couple decades back, but do the same thing on the web under the justification of advertising/marketing and suddenly it's ok.

>Companies get a pass.

I'm pretty sure that if Springer were to make a fraudulent ad, they would instantly be slapped with a lawsuit and face public outcry.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#332

Post by kossTKR »

Timwi wrote: post #315
kossTKR wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm beginning to seriously think we need a new internet, another protocol, other browsers just to break up the insane monopolies that has been formed, because the way things are going soon all discourse will be censored, and competitors will be blocked soon. We need something that's good for small and medium businesses again, local news and get an actual marketplace going - you know what the internet actually promise…

It won't get anywhere unless it addresses the issue of spam, scammers, phishing etc. The whole purpose of Google Safe Browsing is to make life harder for scammers.

True, but google already censors their search results to push certain imperial agendas so i'm not trusting them in the long run.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#333

Post by Chris2048 »

shevy-java wrote: post #287
Jackson__ wrote: post #174

If there are any googlers here, I'd like to report an even more dangerous website. As much as 30-50% of the traffic to it relates to malware or scams, and it has gone unpunished for a very long time. The address appears to be adsense.google.com.

Yeah - that website keeps on spamming me down with useless stuff. I was able to block most of this via ublock origin but Google disabled this - can not download it from here anymore: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal... Funniest nonsense "explanation": "This extension is no longer available because it doesn't follow best practices for Chrome extensions." In reality Google killed it because…

Apparently the "best practise" is using Manifest V3 versus V2.

Reading a bit online (not having any personal/deep knowledge) it seems the original extension also downloaded updates from a private (the developers) server, while that is no longer allowed - they now need to update via the chrome extension, which also means waiting for code review/approval from google.

I can see the security angle there, it is just awkward how much of an vested interest google has in the whole topic. ad-blocking is already a grey area (legally), and there is a cat-and-mouse between blockers and advertisers; it's hard to believe there is only security best-practise going on here.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#334

Post by Chris2048 »

goku12 wrote: post #324
immibis wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use one of the forks. librewolf, waterfox, zen. Firefox itself lost trust when Mozilla tried to push the new Terms of Use earlier this year. That was so aggressively user-hostile that nobody should trust Mozilla ever again. Using a fork puts an insulation layer between you and Mozilla. Librewolf is just a directly de-mozillaed and privacy-enhanced Firefox, similar to Ungoogled Chromium. I've been trying to get in the…

The problem is that all those forks are beholden to Mozilla's corporate interests the same way the chromium derivatives are beholden to Google's corporate interests. What we need is one of the newer independent engines to mature - libweb, servo or blitz.

How are they beholden? In the sense that it's hard to provide engine updates without the funding of goog?

edit: also, by "libweb", did you mean "ladybird"?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#335

Post by sharperguy »

kossTKR wrote: post #300
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…

I'm beginning to seriously think we need a new internet, another protocol, other browsers just to break up the insane monopolies that has been formed, because the way things are going soon all discourse will be censored, and competitors will be blocked soon. We need something that's good for small and medium businesses again, local news and get an actual marketplace going - you know what the internet actually promise…

The community around NOSTR are basically building a kind of semantic web, where users identities are verified via their public key, data is routed through content agnostic relays, and trustworthiness is verified by peer recommendation.

They are currently experimenting with replicating many types of services which are currently websites as protocols with data types, with the goal being that all of these services can share available data with eachother openly.

It's definitely more of a "bazaar" model over a "catherdral" model, with many open questions and it's also tough to get a good overview of what is really going on there. But at least it's an attempt.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#336

Post by asimpleusecase »

I see a lot of comments here about using some browser that will allow ME to see sites I want to see, but I did not see a lot about how do I protect my site or sites of clients from being subjected to this. Is there anything proactive that can be done? A set of checks almost like regression testing? I understand it can be a bit like virus builders using anti virus to test their next virus. But is there a set of best practices that could give you higher probability of not being blocked?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#337

Post by lucideer »

mads_quist wrote: post #306
lucideer wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I cannot believe the rest of the comments on this are seemingly completely missing the problem here & kneejerk-blaming Google for being an evil corp. This is a real issue & I don't feel like the article from the Immich team acknowledges it. Far too much passing the buck, not enough taking ownership.

Yep. Still I feel bad for them.

I think my comment came across a bit harsh - the Immich team are brilliant. I've hosted it for a long time & couldn't be happier & I think my criticisms of the tone of the article are likely a case of ignorance rather than any kind of laziness or dismissiveness.

It's also in general a thankless job maintaining any open-source project, especially one of this scale, so a certain level of kneejerk cynical dismissiveness around stuff like this is expected & very forgivable.

Just really hope the ignorance / knowledge-gap can be closed off though, & perhaps some corrections to certain statements published eventually.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#338

Post by lucideer »

asimpleusecase wrote: post #336

I see a lot of comments here about using some browser that will allow ME to see sites I want to see, but I did not see a lot about how do I protect my site or sites of clients from being subjected to this. Is there anything proactive that can be done? A set of checks almost like regression testing? I understand it can be a bit like virus builders using anti virus to test their next virus. But is there a set of best p…

> how do I protect my site or sites of clients from being subjected to this. Is there anything proactive that can be done?

Some steps to prevent this happening to you:

1. Host only code you own & control on your own domain. Unless...

2. If you have a use-case for allowing arbitrary users to publish & host arbitrary code on a domain you own (or subdomains of), then ensure that domain is a separate dedicated one to the ones you use for your own owned code, that can't be confused with your own owned hosted content.

3. If you're allowing arbitrary members of the public to publish arbitrary code for preview/testing purposes on a domain you own - have the same separation in place for that domain as mentioned above.

4. If you have either of the above two use-cases, publish that separated domain on the Mozilla Public Suffix list https://publicsuffix.org/

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#339

Post by sam_lowry_ »

BSDobelix wrote: post #331
Nextgrid wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is only for plebs like you and me. Companies get a pass. I'm still amazed how deploying spyware would've rightfully landed you in jail a couple decades back, but do the same thing on the web under the justification of advertising/marketing and suddenly it's ok.

>Companies get a pass. I'm pretty sure that if Springer were to make a fraudulent ad, they would instantly be slapped with a lawsuit and face public outcry.

Springer itself is nothing but scam.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#340

Post by bcye »

mads_quist wrote: post #212

Never host your test environments as Subdomains of your actual production domain. You'll also run into email reputation as well as cookie hell. You can get a lot of cookies from the production env if not managed well.

I think immich.app is the production domain, not cloud?
Post reply on HN