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

541–550 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#541

Post by CaptainOfCoit »

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.

Judging by what a person from the Immich team said, that does not seem to be true?

> the whole system only works for PRs from internal branches - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681230

So unless one of the developers in the team published something malicious through that system, it seems Google did not have a legitimate reason for flagging it.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#542

Post by gjsman-1000 »

parliament32 wrote: post #536
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…

> 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…

A. SpamAssassin has never been tested at Gmail scale, and would likely fail in such a scenario.

B. SpamAssassin is benefiting from centralized players, like Gmail, harming spam's economics. You're a free rider from the onslaught that would occur if spamming actually worked. Spam is at 45.6% of email globally with aggressive spam filters, but could easily double, triple, quadruple in volume if filters started failing even moderately. Weaker filters, and we'll start seeing the email DDoS for the first time.

C. Heuristics on AI Content? What are you going to do, run an "AI Detector" model on a GPU for every incoming email? 376 billion of them every day to Gmail alone? This only makes the email DDoS even more likely.

D. Lazy = 99%+ of global computer users - and that's changing as soon as everyone becomes their own paramedic. If you can't convince most people to learn how to save other people's lives, and probably didn't bother yourself, despite it being disproportionately more important, you're never teaching them technical literacy.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#543

Post by CaptainOfCoit »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #537
sithadmin wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My bank displays me a popup warning me to check who I'm sending money to every time I make a transfer. If I've made that same transfer before, after showing that, it's also telling me that it won't ask for 2FA for this transfer, because I've made it so many times before.

High quality or even medium quality software and UX is getting harder and harder to find.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#544

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

mrtesthah wrote: post #477
itopaloglu83 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s almost as if those companies have country like powers. Maybe they should be subject to same limitations like First Amendment etc.

The solution is just to enforce the anti-trust act as it is written.

As long as wealth can be transduced into political power, that boat is beached as

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#545

Post by CaptainOfCoit »

0_____0 wrote: post #436
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…

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.

> I suspect the EU will be the first region to push the big tech companies on this.

Supposedly, DMA should enforce this already.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/meta-announces-next-st...

Haven't heard much about it lately though.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#546

Post by GoblinSlayer »

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,…

Looks like market share is not a concern anymore: when one participant adopts a dark pattern others follow, because then consumer has nowhere to go. What Orwell called it, collectivist oligarchy?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#547

Post by dbspin »

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…

So the solution to AI slop and spam is end of anonymity and total state control of the internet? Talk about the cure being worse than the disease.

The issues with todays internet stem specifically from the centralisation of power in the hands of Google, Apple and the social networks.

Bad search results? Blame Google's monopoly incentivising them intentionally making their results worse.

Difficulty promoting or finding events? Blame Facebooks real revenue model - preventing one to many communications by default and charging for exceptions.

AI overrun with slop? Blame OpenAI and Facebook, both of whom are actively promoting and profiting from the creation of slop.

Automated traffic slowing down sites? It's often the AI companies indexing and reindexing hundreds of times.

Spam? Not a huge issue for anyone that I'm aware of.

The closed internet platforms are the problem. Forcing them to relinquish control over handsets, data and our interpersonal connections is the solution. It will be legislative, or it will be torches to the data centres, likely both. But it is coming.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#548

Post by marcosdumay »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #6

Be sure to see the team's whole list of Cursed Knowledge. https://immich.app/cursed-knowledge

Hum...

Dark-grey text on black is cursed. (Their light theme is readable.)

Also, you can do bulk inserts in postgres using arrays. Take a look at unnest. Standard bulk inserts are cursed in every database, I'm with the devs here that it's not worth fixing them in postgres just for compatibility.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#549

Post by gjsman-1000 »

dbspin wrote: post #547
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…

So the solution to AI slop and spam is end of anonymity and total state control of the internet? Talk about the cure being worse than the disease. The issues with todays internet stem specifically from the centralisation of power in the hands of Google, Apple and the social networks. Bad search results? Blame Google's monopoly incentivising them intentionally making their results worse. Difficulty promoting or findin…

I completely disagree.

> The issues with todays internet stem specifically from the centralisation of power in the hands of Google and the social networks.

> Bad search results? Blame Google's monopoly incentivising them intentionally making their results worse.

> Difficulty promoting or finding events? Blame Facebooks real revenue model - preventing one to many communications by default and charging for exceptions.

You're misdiagnosing what happened here. These aren't diseases. These are symptoms that the more open internet, that we had in the early 2000s, completely failed at scale. The disease was the predictable failure of an open system to self-moderate, the symptoms the centralization that followed. You're mistaking effect for cause.

People started using Google, because it was the only tool good enough at digging through manure. Facebook started charging for mass communication, because otherwise, everyone has an excuse why they need to use it. Cloudflare became popular, because the internet didn't care when 40% of traffic was bots, half of them malicious, before AI was even on the scene. And so on.

The open system failed, and was becoming unusable. Big Tech arrived offering proprietary solutions as CPR. They didn't cause the death.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#550

Post by jrowen »

jacquesm wrote: post #307
jrowen wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Google's services, especially their free services, are never really free. It's just that the price tag is so well hidden that ordinary users really believe this. But the HN audience is more technical than that and they see through the smokescreen. Except for those that are making money off adds directly or indirectly, and who believe in their god given right to my attention and my data. > I'm increasingly blown away…

It's just that the price tag is so well hidden that ordinary users really believe this.

And if they die believing that, what price did they really pay? I don't think the difference mostly comes down to a lack of knowledge or understanding, but more a difference of care or assigned value. There are a lot of smart people on HN, but with that often comes exaggerated anxieties and paranoias. If most people don't give a crap about giving their data to Google or allowing the big bad advertisements to penetrate their feeble minds or whatever, vociferously beating that drum just amounts to old-man-yelling-at-cloud-esque FUD.

Things 'barely even registering to most people' is not as strong a position as you may think it is.

I understand that logically that is neither here nor there, it was more just an expression of exasperation. It's kind of like how I'm equally blown away by how much energy some people put into anti-abortion laws. It's like, ok, everyone can have their opinions, and there's plenty of reasonable discussion to be had, but to put so much negative energy into something that's like, is this really the battle that's worth this much outrage right now? There are literally genocides and violent deportations going on around us. Google are not the bad guys.

Also, I don't use any kind of ad blocker. There are definitely lots of ad-infested unusable experiences out there but Google products are generally among the classiest and most unobtrusive.

Post reply on HN