Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome is blocking wired.com

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Chrome is blocking wired.com

#91

Post by spacemanmatt »

bashcoder wrote: post #87
lvs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's technically a correct statement. Try: chrome://net-internals/#dns Click "Clear host cache"

Actually the issue was that I was using Google's DNS. When I disabled that, it worked just fine. But thanks for showing me the Chrome trick. As to the technically correct statement, don't you think that saying a site is a "known malware distributor" is a bit more sweeping than saying something more accurate like "we discovered malware on this site"? In other words, they are using the same language I would expect to s…

How should they word when the site is known to distribute malware? There is no difference between discovery and distribution, if you consider the method of discovery.

Re: Chrome is blocking wired.com

#92

Post by spacemanmatt »

fooyc wrote: post #80
Istof wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know that and I think that it is very surprising since Google usually doesn't turn down free information about it's users.

I believe Chrome is much more strategical than that. Google could lose enormous market share if any major browser decided to change the default search engine. So they created their own major browser. Chrome is not an information source for Google, it's a way to maintain Google as a default search engine. They fund Mozilla for the same reason.

Your premise about Google's motivation for creating Chrome is belied by the fact that they were dominant in search for years before Chrome came out. They never had anything to worry about there.

Re: Chrome is blocking wired.com

#93

Post by dragonwriter »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #92
fooyc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Chrome is much more strategical than that. Google could lose enormous market share if any major browser decided to change the default search engine. So they created their own major browser. Chrome is not an information source for Google, it's a way to maintain Google as a default search engine. They fund Mozilla for the same reason.

Your premise about Google's motivation for creating Chrome is belied by the fact that they were dominant in search for years before Chrome came out. They never had anything to worry about there.

Being dominant doesn't mean that there is no foreseeable threat to dominance. Preventing a hostile browser monopoly which could work against Google's search dominance is a credible motivation for Chrome (though probably not the sole motivation -- moving web technology in a direction favorable to Google's non-search roadmap was clearly a factor, as well.)

Similarly, a major reason for Android could be seen to be preventing a hostile mobile-platform monopoly which would either block or extract monopoly rents from (and thus limit the value of) Google services reaching mobile users.

Re: Chrome is blocking wired.com

#94

Post by chromatic »

shortstuffsushi wrote: post #84
comex wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most(?) browser vulnerabilities are caused by errors in C++ code which would not be exploitable in memory safe languages. One of the goals of Mozilla's Servo is to write a browser that's memory safe without compromising performance.

I think Servo's "safety" is ultimately due to the fact that it's built on Rust. Rust, however, seems to be ultimately built on C, unless I'm mistaken (having a hard time telling by briefly glancing through their Github, but it looks that way). My point was that it's not a C specific problem, though. Most browsers are in fact built on C, I agree. This is due primarily to the speed and performance of the language that…

Rust is self-hosted, so the compiler's written in Rust.

Re: Chrome is blocking wired.com

#95

Post by shortstuffsushi »

shortstuffsushi wrote: post #84
comex wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most(?) browser vulnerabilities are caused by errors in C++ code which would not be exploitable in memory safe languages. One of the goals of Mozilla's Servo is to write a browser that's memory safe without compromising performance.

I think Servo's "safety" is ultimately due to the fact that it's built on Rust. Rust, however, seems to be ultimately built on C, unless I'm mistaken (having a hard time telling by briefly glancing through their Github, but it looks that way). My point was that it's not a C specific problem, though. Most browsers are in fact built on C, I agree. This is due primarily to the speed and performance of the language that…

Care to comment down voters? If you're voting because of my rust comment, maybe read the part where I said "not sure, haven't read much about it."

If you vote because you think C is unsafe, carry on. You're wrong, though.

Re: Chrome is blocking wired.com

#96

Post by Istof »

fooyc wrote: post #80
Istof wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know that and I think that it is very surprising since Google usually doesn't turn down free information about it's users.

I believe Chrome is much more strategical than that. Google could lose enormous market share if any major browser decided to change the default search engine. So they created their own major browser. Chrome is not an information source for Google, it's a way to maintain Google as a default search engine. They fund Mozilla for the same reason.

Google always cared about which website you visit. They are using javascript to dynamically change the destination address of search results on Google.com using an on-click... but I guess they figured that most people who uses chrome didn't bother to change the default search engine so the small percentage of bookmark browsing (that doesnt have Google services embedded) is not worth it.

Re: Chrome is blocking wired.com

#97

Post by Istof »

nolok wrote: post #77
Istof wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know that and I think that it is very surprising since Google usually doesn't turn down free information about it's users.

Why would they turn down the expected payment for their free services ? That would be stupid.

exactly

Re: Chrome is blocking wired.com

#98

Post by tensenki »

danielweber wrote: post #48
tensenki wrote: post #32

So when does robot slander/libel suits begin? I'd be mighty ticked if google started labelling my sites as malware when they're clearly not.

This is why we can't have nice things. Chrome was doing yeoman's work by stopping their users from going to a site that was malicious earlier today.

True, I usually wait until the facts are in, but I'm more curious about the question itself. At what point do semi-autonomous programs or constructs become liable for their words or actions.
Post reply on HN