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

531–540 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#531

Post by mbesto »

hamburglar wrote: post #516
mcv wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So why isn't blocking something that is starred 82k times on GitHub bad for business.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#532

Post by abustamam »

slenk wrote: post #491
quentindanjou wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone with a small business that applied for Venmo Business account (which is the main payment method in their community industry) and Venmo refused to open the account and didn't provide any reason as to why saying that they have the right to choose to refuse providing the service, which they do . But all the competitors of that business in the area do have a Venmo and take payment this way so it is basical…

Same thing with Paypal - I opened a business account, was able to do one transaction and was shut down for fraud. I tested a donation to myself. Under $10. Lifetime ban. fuck paypal

Fuck PayPal.

Fwiw Venmo is run by the same thugs who run PayPal. So go figure.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#533

Post by ethbr1 »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #511
ethbr1 wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think 00s+ tech history has demonstrated that the free market is no longer sufficient to promote healthy competition.

Partly a consequence of the biggest tech firms getting bigger.

And partly because of newfound technical ability to achieve mass lock-in (e.g. vendor-controlled encryption, TPMs, vertical integration in platforms, first-party app stores, etc).

The 'but regulatory capture' counter argument rings hollow when the government has given the market a lighter monopoly regulatory touch... and we've ended up with a more concentrated, less competitive market than when it was more heavily regulated.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#534

Post by gmueckl »

shadowgovt wrote: post #345
gmueckl wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every decent host OS already has a dedicated driver stack to provide game controller input to applications in a useful manner. Why the heck would you ship a reimplementation of that in JS in a website?

So that you can take input from countrollers that haven't been invented yet and won't fit the HID model.

If it hasn't been invented yet, you don't need driver software for it, do you? ;)

Anyway, in your scenario the controller would be essentially a one off and you'd be better off writing a native app to interface with it for the one computer this experiment will run on.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#535

Post by CaptainOfCoit »

bo0tzz wrote: post #414
CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They clearly are? It seems like GitHub users submitting a PR could/can add a `preview` label, and that would lead to the application + their changes to be deployed to a public URL under "*.immich.cloud". So they're hosted content generated by users (built application based on user patches) on domains under their control.

I'm the guy that built the system, lol. Labels can only be added by maintainers, and the whole system only works for PRs from internal branches.

Ah, then that's a different situation then, sorry for misunderstanding the context and thanks for clearing that up! I was under the impression that Immich accepted outside contributions, and those would also have those preview sites created for their pending contributions.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#536

Post by parliament32 »

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…

> To try to do something about it requires curation, somebody needs to decide what is junk, which is completely antithetical to open protocols.

The contra-example, of course, is email. SpamAssassin figured this out 24 years (!) ago. There is zero reason you couldn't apply similar heuristics to detect AI-slop or whatever particular kind of content you don't want to accept.

> Radical recentralization to companies that had effective spam management

Only for the lazy.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#537

Post by GoblinSlayer »

sithadmin wrote: post #507
slenk wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing with Paypal - I opened a business account, was able to do one transaction and was shut down for fraud. I tested a donation to myself. Under $10. Lifetime ban. fuck paypal

That’s not unique to PayPal. Pretty much any payment processor that detects a proprietor paying themselves is going to throw up a red flag for circular cash flow fraud and close the account. Bank-operated payment processors are often slower to catch it, but they will also boot you for this.

Here clown world is going strong too. My bank bans me every time I pay taxes.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#538

Post by phatskat »

gmueckl wrote: post #109
lukan wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You could take about 90% of that out and into dedicated tools " But then you would loose plattform independency, the main selling point of this atrocity. Having all those APIs in a sandbox that mostly just work on billion devices is pretty powerful and a potential succesor to HTML would have to beat that, to be adopted. The best thing to happen, that I can see, is that a sane subset crystalizes, that people start to…

But do we need e.g serial port or raw USB access straight from a random website? Even WebRTC is a bit of a stretch. There is a lot of cruft in modern browsers that does little except increase attack surface. This all just drives a need to come up with ever more tacked-on protection schemes because browsers have big targets painted on them.

> But do we need e.g serial port or raw USB access straight from a random website?

But do we need audio, images, Canvas, WebGL, etc? The web could just be plain text and we’d get most of the “useful” content still, add images and you get a vast majority of it.

But the idea that the web is a rich environment that has all of these bells and whistles is a good thing imo. Yes there’s attack surface to consider, and it’s not negligible. However, the ability to connect so many different things opens up simple access to things that would otherwise require discrete apps and tooling.

One example that kind of blew my mind is that I wanted a controller overlay for my Twitch stream. After a short bit of looking, there isn’t even a plugin needed in OBS (streaming software). Instead, you add a Web View layer and point it to GamePad Viewer[1] and you’re done.

Serial and USB are possibly a boon for very specific users with very specific accessibility needs. Also, iirc some of the early iPhone jailbreaks worked via websites on a desktop with your iPhone plugged into usb. Sure these are niche, and could probably be served just as well or better with native apps, and web also makes the barrier to entry so much lower .

[1]: https://gamepadviewer.com/

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#540

Post by gmueckl »

sofixa wrote: post #262
gmueckl wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do we need e.g serial port or raw USB access straight from a random website? Even WebRTC is a bit of a stretch. There is a lot of cruft in modern browsers that does little except increase attack surface. This all just drives a need to come up with ever more tacked-on protection schemes because browsers have big targets painted on them.

> Even WebRTC is a bit of a stretch You remove that, and videoconferencing (for business or person to person) has to rely on downloading an app, meaning whoever is behind the website has to release for 10-15 OSes now. Some already do, but not everyone has that budget so now there's a massive moat around it. > But do we need e.g serial port or raw USB access straight from a random website Being able to flash an IoT (e…

I'll flip that around on you: why oh why do we need to browsers to carry these security holes in them? The Stadia flasher is a good example: how do I know that a website doesn't contain a device flasher that will turn one of my connected devices into a malicious actor that will attempt to take over whatever machine it's plugged into?
Post reply on HN