Google flags Immich sites as dangerous • Hacker News Board

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#711

Post by ramses0 » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 11:41 AM UTC

IanCal wrote: post #710

ramses0 wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like "provenance" of content. I broadcast my accountability of "myblog.com/posts/...", but would disavow "myblog.com/posts/.../#comments" There's some ways of like "nofollow", but nothing systematic, and no "protocol" for disavowing paths, uploads, or fragments. Back in the slashdot days, I thought of "blogs are the stationary of the internet", a way to more authoritatively declare that the content was your…

Again I think we're talking about different things. > We just haven't had the benefit or forcing function which encourages a solution to "that stuff over there is less trusted than my stuff over here". No the problem is we can't let people say "that stuff is someone elses fault" when it is their own fault. Scammers will claim subdomains are actually just not them and are other bad actors, and you're back to loads of…

If you reread my final paragraph (MUST be responsible) then in think we're reaching the same conclusion: "on behalf of" is untenable for small hosts (ie: anyone smaller than Google or Facebook)

The other way of looking at it might be similar to "DMARC-4-HTTP", ie: sign Content-Length, Content-Sig with a public/private key and if you include `SELECT comments FROM evil` then that "taints" your key.

It gets back to netlify that index.html would be signed by netlify.gpg, but haxor.netlify.com would be signed by not_netlify.gpg

...we can call it "web of trust 2.0" :-P

Appreciate the honest discussion!

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#712

Post by dizlexic » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 1:40 PM UTC

poisonborz wrote: post #282

dizlexic wrote: post #229

Ran a clickbait site, and got flagged for using a bunch of 302 redirects instead of 301s. Went from almost 500k uniques a month to 1k. During the appeal it was reviewed from India, and I had been using geoblocking. This caused my appeal to be denied. I ended up deploying to a new domain and starting over. Never caught back up.

Congrats on this great choice of business endeavor

I hear this a lot. I'm self-taught and had just been let go from my first dev job ever. I was broke and desperate so I built something.

I have been ashamed of it at multiple times in my career, but tbh I built something that fed, sheltered, and clothed me. It was worth.

I also learned a lot.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#713

Post by shkkmo » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 7:18 PM UTC

jdsully wrote: post #679

shkkmo wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The one thing I never understood about these warnings is how they don't run afoul of libel laws. They are directly calling you a scammer and "attacker" Being wrong doesn't count as libel. If a company has a detection tool, makes reasonable efforts to make sure it is accurate, and isn't being malicious, you'll have a hard time making a libel case

There is a truth defence to libel in the USA but there is no good faith defence. Think about it like a traffic accident, you may not have intended to drive into the other car but you still caused damage. Just because you meant well doesn't absolve you from paying for the damages.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "good faith". The legal standard is "actual malice" which means you had to have either known you were wrong or recklessly disregarded being wrong. Just saying something false about a public figure in a way that causes damages is not enough.