Live data from Hacker News

Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

immich.app

391–400 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You should not be downvoted. Either HN has had an influx of ignorant normies or it's google bots attacking any negative comments

People working for famous adtech companies don't like it when people like op burst their bubble. I myself don't like it one bit - keep on changing the world you beautiful geniuses!

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#392

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…

Stop trying to look for technological answers to political problems. We already have a way to avoid excessive accumulation of power by private entities, it's called "anti-trust laws" (heck, "laws" in general). Any new protocol not only has to overcome the huge incumbent that is the web, it has to do so grassroots against the power of global capital (trillions of dollars of it). Of course, it also has to work in the f…

States are made of people both at decision and at street level. Many anti-trust laws were made when the decision people that were not very tied with the actual interests - nowadays this seem to change. At no point I think people at street level ever understood the actual implications.

A structural solution is to educate and lift the whole population to better understand the implications of their choices.

A tactic solution is to try to limit the collusion of decision people and private entities, but this does not seem to go extremely well.

An "evolutionary" solution (that just happens) used to be to have a war - that would push a lot of people to look for efficiency rather than for some interests. But this is made more complex by nukes.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#393
post #8

If you're going to host user content on subdomains, then you should probably have your site on the Public Suffix List https://publicsuffix.org/list/ . That should eventually make its way into various services so they know that a tainted subdomain doesn't taint the entire site....

The issue isn't the user-hosted content - I'm running a release build of Immich on my own server and Google flagged my entire domain.

Is the subdomain named immich or something more general?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think google is crumbling under the weight of their size. They are no longer able to process the requested commercials with due diligence.

I see the same scam/deepfake ad(s) pretty much persistently. Maybe they actually differ slightly (they are AI gen mostly), but it's pretty obvious what they are, and I'm sure they get flagged a lot. They just need to introduce a basic deposit to post ads, and you lose it if you put up a scam ad. Would soon pay for the staff needed to police it, and prevent scammers from bypassing admin by trivially creating new accou…

I used to flag obvious scam adverts. A bunch of times I'd even get an email response a few weeks later saying it was taken down. But then I'd see it again (maybe slightly different or by a "different" advertiser, who knows). Its whack-a-mole.

The reality is that google profits from scam adverts, so they don't proactively do anything about it and hide behind the "at our scale, we can't effectively do anything about it" argument. Which is complete horseshit because if you can't prevent obvious scams on your platform, you don't deserve to have a platform. Google doesn't have to be running at their scale. "We would make less money" is not a valid excuse. We'd all make more money if we could ignore laws and let people be scammed or taken advantage of.

There's plenty of ways they could solve it, but they choose not to. IMHO this should be a criminal offence and google executives should be harshly punished. Its also why I have a rather negative view of googlers, since they wilfully perpetuate this stuff by working on adtech while nothing is being done about the normal everyday people getting scammed each day. Its only getting worse with AI, but I've been seeing it for years.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#395
post #8

If you're going to host user content on subdomains, then you should probably have your site on the Public Suffix List https://publicsuffix.org/list/ . That should eventually make its way into various services so they know that a tainted subdomain doesn't taint the entire site....

In the past, browsers used an algorithm which only denied setting wide-ranging cookies for top-level domains with no dots (e.g. com or org). However, this did not work for top-level domains where only third-level registrations are allowed (e.g. co.uk). In these cases, websites could set a cookie for .co.uk which would be passed onto every website registered under co.uk. Since there was and remains no algorithmic meth…

> God I hate the web. The engineering equivalent of a car made of duct tape.

Most of the complex thing I have seen being made (or contributed to) needed duct tape sooner or later. Engineering is the art of trade-offs, of adapting to changing requirements (that can appear due to uncontrollable events external to the project), technology and costs.

Related, this is how the first long distance automobile trip was done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_Benz#First_cross-countr... . Seems to me it had quite some duct tape.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#396

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…

You make it seem like the problem is of technical nature (instead of regulatory or other). Would you mind explaining why? Technical alternatives already exist, see for example GNUnet.

Problem is that as soon as some technology takes traction, it catches the attention of businesses, and there is where the slow but steady enshittification process begins. Not that business necessarily equals enshittification, but in a world dominated by capitalism without borders soon or later someone will break some unwritten rules and others will have to follow to remain competitive, until that new technology will become a new web, and we'll be back to square one. To me the problem isn't technical, as isn't its solution.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What is Safari getting by using Safe Browsing?

Is this a rhetoric question? Safari is just a middleman. G offers seemingly free services in exchange of your data and in order to get a market monopoly. Then they can sell you to their advertisers, squeeze out the competition and become the only Sheriff in town. How many free lunches you have got in your career?

”Competition is for losers.” -Peter Thiel

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#398

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…

We have a “new internet”. We have the indie web, VPNs, websites not behind Cloudflare, other browsers. You won’t have a large audience, but a new protocol won't fix that.

Also, plenty of small and medium businesses are doing fine on the internet. You only hear about ones with problems like this. And if these problems become more frequent and public, Google will put more effort into fixing them.

I think the most practical thing we can do is support people and companies who fall through the cracks, by giving them information to understand their situation and recover, and by promoting them.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#399
post #177

Can I use this space to comment on how amazing Immich is? I self host lots of stuff, and there’s this one tier above everything else that’s currently, and exclusively, held by Home Assistant and Immich. It is actually _better_ than Google photos (if you keep your db and thumbs on ssd, and run the top model for image search). You give up nothing, and own all your data.

I migrated over from google photos 2 years ago. It has been nothing but amazing. No wonder google has it in its crosshairs.

Don't they block NextCloud sync in the Play Store, for similar reasons?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#400
post #8

If you're going to host user content on subdomains, then you should probably have your site on the Public Suffix List https://publicsuffix.org/list/ . That should eventually make its way into various services so they know that a tainted subdomain doesn't taint the entire site....

I think it's somewhat tribal webdev knowledge that if you host user generated content you need to be on the PSL otherwise you'll eventually end up where Immich is now. I'm not sure how people not already having hit this very issue before is supposed to know about it beforehand though, one of those things that you don't really come across until you're hit by it.

Clearly they are not reading HN enough. It hasn’t even been two weeks since this issue last hit the front page.

I wish this comment were top ranked so it would be clear immediately from the comments what the root issue was.

Post reply on HN