Google flags Immich sites as dangerous • Hacker News Board

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#511

Post by calvinmorrison » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 3:46 PM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #503

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to fix the jurisprudence around anti-trust. > No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting comme…

The issue is that current law around monopolies defines them from the wrong angle. Instead of taking a consumer-centric / competition perspective, they should be defined in terms of market share (with markets broadly defined from a consumer perspective). >10% = some minimal interoperability and reporting requirements >25% = serious interoperability requirements >35% = severe and audited interoperability requirements,…

well exactly, Verizon, Amazon, etc all LOVE more regulation. they have armies of lawyers who not only help in constructing the laws, they help pass, lobby and implement them. then the same law firms help amazon, verizon, etc execute it.

It's regulatory capture

now a small competitor wants to do something like get into the wifi game and they're look at huge fixed fees to get started.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#512

Post by its_brass » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 3:49 PM UTC

kaoD wrote: post #214

kyle-rb wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> JavaScript date objects are 1 indexed for years and days, but 0 indexed for months. I don't disagree that months should be 1-indexed, but I would not make that assumption solely based on days/years being 1-indexed, since 0-indexing those would be psychotic.

The only reason I can think of to 0-index months is so you can do monthName[date.getMonth()] instead of monthName[date.getMonth() - 1]. I don't think adding counterintuitive behavior to your data to save a "- 1" here and there is a good idea, but I guess this is just legacy from the ancient times.

A [StackOverflow thread](https://stackoverflow.com/a/41992352) about this interface says it was introduced by Java way back in 1995, and copied by the first JavaScript implementation.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#513

Post by Gormo » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 3:53 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #449

Gormo wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that putting locks on your front door will reduce the chance of your house getting robbed, but if you do get robbed, the fact that your front door wasn't locked does not in any way absolve the thief for his conduct. Similarly, if an organization deploys a public system that engages in libel and tortious interference, the fact that jumping through technical hoops might make it less likely to be affected by t…

> mitigating false positives First & foremost I really need to emphasise that, despite the misleading article title, this was not a false positive. Google flagged this domain for legitimate reasons. I think there's likely a conversation to be had about messaging - Chrome's warning page seems a little scarier than it should be, Firefox's is more measured in its messaging. But in terms of the API service Google are pro…

> First & foremost I really need to emphasise that, despite the misleading article title, this was not a false positive. Google flagged this domain for legitimate reasons.

Where are you getting that from? I don't see any evidence that there actually was any malicious activity going on on the Immich domain.

> But in terms of the API service Google are providing here this is absolutely not a false positive.

Google is applying heuristics derived from statistical correlations to classify sites. When a statistical indicator is present, but its target variable is not present, that is the very definition of a false positive.

Just because their verbiage uses uncertainty qualifiers like "may" or "might" doesn't change the fact that they are materially interfering with a third party's activities based on presumptive inferences that have not been validated -- and in fact seem to be invalid -- in this particular case.

> If you leave your apartment unlocked when you go out & a thief steals your housemate's laptop, is your housemate required to exclusively focus on the thief or should they be permitted to request you to be more diligent about locking doors?

One has nothing to do with the other. The fact that you didn't lock your door does not legitimize the thief's behavior. Google's behavior is still improper here, even if website operators have the option of investing additional time, effort, or money to reduce the likelihood of being misclassified by Google.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#514

Post by bityard » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

Eisenstein wrote: post #471

Teever wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking for a while that a coordinated and massive action against a specific company by people all claiming damages in small claims court would be a very effective way of bringing that company to heel.

I wonder how that will work with mandatory arbitration clauses. Guess you don't know until you try.

I was under the impression that the Supreme Court had ruled that mandatory arbitration clauses were indeed mandatory. Meaning, if you are subject to a mandatory arbitration clause in some contract, it removes ALL ability for a plaintiff to sue a company.

But, good news, it seems like they are walking back on that. They recently ruled that lower courts must "pause" a suit and the suit can resume if an agreement is not made through arbitration.

https://www.bressler.com/news-supreme-court-clarifies-mandat...

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#515

Post by immibis » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

nucleative wrote: post #424

We really need an internet Bill of Rights. Google has too much power to delete your company from existence with no due process or recourse. If any company controls some (high) percentage of a particular market, say web browsers, search, or e-commerce, or social media, the public's equal access should start to look more like a right and less like an at-will contract. 30 years ago, if a shop had a falling out with the…

FWIW in some jurisdictions you might be able to sue them for tortious interference, which basically means they went out of their way to hurt your business.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#516

Post by hamburglar » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #473

chrismorgan wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The culprit, according to google search console, was a double redirect on our web email domain (/ -> inbox -> login). I find it hard to believe that the double redirect itself tripped it: multiple redirects in a row is completely normal—discouraged in general because it hurts performance, but you encounter them all the time . For example, http://foo.example → https://foo.example → https://www.foo.example (http → ht…

Want to see how often Microsoft accounts redirect you? I'd love to see Google block all of Microsoft, but of course that will never happen, because these tech giants are effectively a cartel looking out for each other. At least in comparison to users and smaller businesses.

The reason Google doesn’t block Microsoft isn’t that they’re “looking out for Microsoft.” They’re looking out for themselves by being aware that blocking something that millions of people use would be bad for business.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#517

Post by immibis » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:03 PM UTC

breakingcups wrote: post #486

LorenDB wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2025 you can use Beeper (or run your own local Matrix server with the opensource bridges) and get the same result with WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Discord, Google Messages, etc. etc.

You'd have to break most of those platforms' TOS to do so.

That's always been the case. Jailbreaking your phone is also breaking TOS. Sideloading apps on iPhone by using the developer features is breaking TOS. Almost anything that gives a corporation less money or control over you is against that corporation's TOS. That's not the law, though, and we need to grow a collective spine.

... It's a lot easier to have a spine about risking getting banned from a service if getting banned from that service wouldn't destroy your life.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#518

Post by immibis » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:04 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #500

0_____0 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Force interoperability. In 2009 I could run Pidgin and load messages from AIM, FB Messages, Yahoo... Where did that go? I suspect the EU will be the first region to push the big tech companies on this.

> 2009 I could run Pidgin and load messages from AIM, FB Messages, Yahoo... Where did that go? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcY3W5WgNU But seriously; the internet is now overrun with AI Slop, Spam, and automated traffic. To try to do something about it requires curation , somebody needs to decide what is junk , which is completely antithetical to open protocols. This problem is structurally unsolvable, there is n…

I run an email server with no specific spam filter. Sometimes I get spam. Then I add a filter on my end to delete it and move on. It's nowhere near as bad as people proclaim. Neither is deliverability, for that matter, even after I forgot to set an SPF record and some random internet server sent a bunch of spam on my behalf (which I know because I got the bounces).

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#519

Post by immibis » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:06 PM UTC

Eisenstein wrote: post #471

Teever wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking for a while that a coordinated and massive action against a specific company by people all claiming damages in small claims court would be a very effective way of bringing that company to heel.

I wonder how that will work with mandatory arbitration clauses. Guess you don't know until you try.

Valve tried this. But there's no class action arbitration. Meaning that instead of a single class action suit, they had thousands of individual arbitration cases and they were actually begging people to sue them instead. So we could just do that. If they want mandatory arbitration they can have mandatory arbitration. From half of us, just in case it doesn't work.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#520

Post by gjsman-1000 » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:06 PM UTC

immibis wrote: post #518

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2009 I could run Pidgin and load messages from AIM, FB Messages, Yahoo... Where did that go? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcY3W5WgNU But seriously; the internet is now overrun with AI Slop, Spam, and automated traffic. To try to do something about it requires curation , somebody needs to decide what is junk , which is completely antithetical to open protocols. This problem is structurally unsolvable, there is n…

I run an email server with no specific spam filter. Sometimes I get spam. Then I add a filter on my end to delete it and move on. It's nowhere near as bad as people proclaim. Neither is deliverability, for that matter, even after I forgot to set an SPF record and some random internet server sent a bunch of spam on my behalf (which I know because I got the bounces).

You have a dirt path to your house and are therefore convinced the interstate highway system should allow direct residential driveways.

Gmail processes 376 billion emails per day. At that volume, even 0.1% spam getting through is 376 million messages. However, we're not talking about 0.1%, but 45.6% of email being spam globally. For Gmail, that's 171 billion spam messages daily. Congrats that your private server works at your scale. It's completely irrelevant, and only works because bad actors don't care about it.

Imagine though, if we even accepted spam culturally and handled it individually, as per your solution. That would mean spam can get through with brute force, which it can't right now, meaning that 45.6% would probably explode closer to 90%, 95%, or more overnight. It's only manageable at 45.6% for you because Gmail's spam filters are working overtime harming the economics.