51–60 of 72 posts
This tool has completely destroyed my opinion of Google. As a developer in my 30s, Google was a huge part of tech in my formative years - in a positive way. Today... Google flags my domains as "unsafe" at least 3 times a year (For deceptive login forms - apparently having the gall to host tooling like bookstack/jellyfin/mealie is "deceptive" because they... ask for my login info? I don't fucking know, google won't te…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a weapons manufacturer made a gun that 1 in every billion times shot you in the head instead of your target, we wouldn't say, "well, sometimes accidents happen" and brush it off. There would be a full investigation as to how and why this happened and someone somewhere would be held accountable. Google in its current form is immune to the consequences of the decisions of its robots, and that is not acceptable.
> If a weapons manufacturer made a gun that 1 in every billion times shot you in the head instead of your target, we wouldn't say, "well, sometimes accidents happen" and brush it off. A more apt comparison would be with seatbelts or airbags. > Google in its current form is immune to the consequences of the decisions of its robots, and that is not acceptable. The market forces are sufficient. If the FP rate climbs too…
do you have any evidence this is true? it seems like a hypothesis that you totally made up just now
it's hard to even imagine the feedback loop that would convince the average user to enter their browser settings and change one of them just to view a website for a product they're interested in but google wrongly blocked them from seeing
indeed, if it were so easy to convince a user to do so, google could make the feature opt-in, with informed consent that the feature might wrongly block them from seeing sites they want to see, letting the user decide for themselves if they want to enable it
no, it seems common sense that they'd just move onto another website/product, and market forces would never actually come into play
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the thing that needs to be regulated. It will force these companies to spend actual money on stuff. they’ll be still insanely profitable but not able to run quasi monopolies on infrastructure and extract all profits while externalising all the damage.
I agree in principle, and this is a shitty situation for the GP, but Google's "contract" with the public doesn't even comprise a gentlemen's agreement. They don't owe anybody anything, they're just the cool kid at school who won't acknowledge your existence. You can't (and shouldn't be able to) force them to be your friend. You can't claim harm because someone stopped being friends with you either. There is a questio…
The majority of economic value creation over the long run happens on the internet, it’s high time to adjust the laws to match physical reality.
You can’t just randomly discriminate against people in the physical worlds too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, you're free to pay for an antivirus product that does the same and you can contact them. this is disingenuous: sure, you could, but no amount of antivirus can stop google from blocking customers or potential customers from seeing you without either of your informed, affirmative consent in any case, thankfully your opinions that the ends justify the means (and also justify easily avoidable negative externaliti…
> this is disingenuous: sure, you could, but no amount of antivirus can stop google from blocking customers or potential customers from seeing you without either of your informed, affirmative consent No amount of Google will stop an antivirus from doing the same without your consent. What's your point? Anti-phish solutions must have the site owners' consent? Don't be ridiculous.
- google could harm people less by providing recourse to the people they harm, but instead chooses not to;
- your suggestion that those harmed by google "just use another antivirus software" is irrelevant and doesn't apply here;
- market forces would not, in fact, be involved here;
- disabling Google's opt-out-only service is more than trivial for the average user; and
- google exploits this non-triviality by making the service opt-out, vs opt-in with informed consent.
> No amount of Google will stop an antivirus from doing the same without your consent.
I wish this didn't need to be explicitly specified, but "someone else could harm people" isn't a defense for google actively harming people
if that happened, and the antivirus company was in google's place, and they also failed to provide recourse to the people they were harming with their negative externalities, that would also be bad, just like it is now bad that google is actually doing it
so, what exactly is your point here in trying to justify google harming people via negative externalities while at the same time totally failing to offer proper recourse to them, when google has the option of harming people less, and chooses to avoid that option?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> obviously it's not acceptable to screw people over and justify it by saying "we're not screwing over everybody, and look, we're doing good stuff, too!” That's the thing, the benefits immensely outweigh the small negatives. Small inconvenience from even tens of thousands of false positives out of tens of billions site visits is such a small cost. You do understand that the alternative would be most phishing sites re…
If a weapons manufacturer made a gun that 1 in every billion times shot you in the head instead of your target, we wouldn't say, "well, sometimes accidents happen" and brush it off. There would be a full investigation as to how and why this happened and someone somewhere would be held accountable. Google in its current form is immune to the consequences of the decisions of its robots, and that is not acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is disingenuous: sure, you could, but no amount of antivirus can stop google from blocking customers or potential customers from seeing you without either of your informed, affirmative consent No amount of Google will stop an antivirus from doing the same without your consent. What's your point? Anti-phish solutions must have the site owners' consent? Don't be ridiculous.
based on your non-response to them, it sounds like you're conceding the following points: - google could harm people less by providing recourse to the people they harm, but instead chooses not to; - your suggestion that those harmed by google "just use another antivirus software" is irrelevant and doesn't apply here; - market forces would not, in fact, be involved here; - disabling Google's opt-out-only service is mo…
A statistical inevitability is a defense for something. The world doesn't have perfect things.
Stop trying to frame something bad just because it isn't perfect. If you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a business risk alright. Some other AV vendor or RBL might list you as well. Inevitably anti-phish solutions end up with false positives, but it's utterly out of the question and silly to ask everyone to stand down defenceless.
I get that you're deadset on defending googoo no matter what, but surely you have to agree that the fact that they made browsers block access to your site AND that you have no ability to do anything about it short of filing a lawsuit or waiting for them to get around to fixing it if they ever do is unconscionable, right? I get that it's a service. I don't get how not having human intervention available to fix it when…
So do AV vendors. What specifically makes it not okay for Google? Have you tried delisting a website from other vendors' products? Microsoft SafeScreen?
If you want to hate on Google doing (or not doing) something, do it based on criteria that can actually be fulfilled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
based on your non-response to them, it sounds like you're conceding the following points: - google could harm people less by providing recourse to the people they harm, but instead chooses not to; - your suggestion that those harmed by google "just use another antivirus software" is irrelevant and doesn't apply here; - market forces would not, in fact, be involved here; - disabling Google's opt-out-only service is mo…
> I wish this didn't need to be explicitly specified, but "someone else could harm people" isn't a defense for you actively harming people A statistical inevitability is a defense for something. The world doesn't have perfect things. Stop trying to frame something bad just because it isn't perfect. If you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion.
no it isn't, and also being screwed over by the leading search provider isn't a statistical inevitably anyways
> Stop trying to frame something bad just because it isn't perfect. If you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion.
stop trying to justify the means with the ends, more specifically trying to justify google actively harming people (sorry to break the news to you, but harming people IS bad), just because they also happened to do a good thing, when they have the non-mutually-exclusive option to harm people less, and instead choose to avoid that option
if you manage to stop that, then it would be possible to have a constructive discussion about how google can harm people less, since currently it seems like you're okay with google actively harming people any amount less than or equal to the amount of "good" they claim to do (with the determination made by you personally, natch), even when they could choose not to
This tool has completely destroyed my opinion of Google. As a developer in my 30s, Google was a huge part of tech in my formative years - in a positive way. Today... Google flags my domains as "unsafe" at least 3 times a year (For deceptive login forms - apparently having the gall to host tooling like bookstack/jellyfin/mealie is "deceptive" because they... ask for my login info? I don't fucking know, google won't te…
Your internet? It’s my internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a weapons manufacturer made a gun that 1 in every billion times shot you in the head instead of your target, we wouldn't say, "well, sometimes accidents happen" and brush it off. There would be a full investigation as to how and why this happened and someone somewhere would be held accountable. Google in its current form is immune to the consequences of the decisions of its robots, and that is not acceptable.
I mean, most weapons probably have a 1 in a billion chance (or much higher) to misfire