Please point me to where GoDaddy or any other hosting site mentions public suffix, or where Apple or Google or Mozilla have a listing hosting best practices that include avoiding false positives by Safe Browsing…
>GoDaddy or any other hosting site mentions public suffix
They don't need to mention it because they handle it on behalf of the client. Them recommending best practices like using separate domains makes as much sense as them recommending what TLS configs to use.
>or where Apple or Google or Mozilla have a listing hosting best practices that include avoiding false positives by Safe Browsing…
Since were those sites the go to place to learn how to host a site? Apple doesn't offer anything related to web hosting besides "a computer that can run nginx". Google might be the place to ask if you were your aunt and "google" means "internet" to her. Mozilla is the most plausible one because they host MDN, but hosting documentation on HTML/CSS/JS doesn't necessarily mean they offer hosting advice, any more than expecting docs.djangoproject.com to contain hosting advice.
Nothing in this article indicates UGC is the problem. It's that Google thinks there's an "official" central immich and these instances are impersonating it.
What malicious UGC would you even deliver over this domain? An image with scam instructiins? CSAM isn't even in scope for Safe Browsing, just phishing and malware.
It's not a "service" at all. It's Google maliciously inserting themselves into the browsing experience of users, including those that consciously choose a non-Google browser, in order to build a global web censorship system.
>You might not think it is, but internet is filled utterly dangerous, scammy, phisy, malwary websites
Google is happy to take their money and show scammy ads. Google ads are the most common vector for fake software support scams. Most people google something like "microsoft support" and end up there. Has Google ever banned their own ad domains?
Google is the last entity I would trust to be neutral here.
The argument would work better if Google wasn't the #1 distributor of scams and malware in the world with adsense. (Which strangely isn't flagged by safe browsing, maybe a coincidence)
Is this a rhetoric question? Safari is just a middleman. G offers seemingly free services in exchange of your data and in order to get a market monopoly. Then they can sell you to their advertisers, squeeze out the competition and become the only Sheriff in town. How many free lunches you have got in your career?
People working for famous adtech companies don't like it when people like op burst their bubble. I myself don't like it one bit - keep on changing the world you beautiful geniuses!
Exactly! Most of HN users work for "big tech" and are complete sell outs to their corporate overlords. Majority of them are to blame for the current bloated state of the web along with excessive mass surveillance and anti-privacy state we are in
HN is extremely tone-policed. Lines like "holy shit look in a mirror" are likely to attract downvotes because of their form, with no other factors being considered.
It's full of people described in this blog post [1]. As it concludes, GTFO! Flagging is the IRL equivalent of crying to your superior instead of actually having an argument which is pathetic
I asked dang if I was shadowbanned from flagging. He said yes, if I flag something then it doesn't count because I flagged the wrong things in the past.
The conclusion is that flagging isn't really up to user choice, but is up to dang who decides which things should be flagged and which shouldn't. It's a bit like how on Reddit, the only comments you can see are the ones that agree with the moderators of that subreddit.
Please point me to where GoDaddy or any other hosting site mentions public suffix, or where Apple or Google or Mozilla have a listing hosting best practices that include avoiding false positives by Safe Browsing…
>GoDaddy or any other hosting site mentions public suffix
They don't need to mention it because they handle it on behalf of the client. Them recommending best practices like using separate domains makes as much sense as them recommending what TLS configs to use.
>or where Apple or Google or Mozilla have a listing hosting best practices that include avoiding false positives by Safe Browsing…
Since were those sites the go to place to learn how to host a site? Apple doesn't offer anything related to web hosting besides "a computer that can run nginx". Google might be the place to ask if you were your aunt and "google" means "internet" to her. Mozilla is the most plausible one because they host MDN, but hosting documentation on HTML/CSS/JS doesn't necessarily mean they offer hosting advice, any more than expecting docs.djangoproject.com to contain hosting advice.
The underlying question is how are people supposed to know about this before they have a big problem?
[flagged]
Nothing in this article indicates UGC is the problem. It's that Google thinks there's an "official" central immich and these instances are impersonating it.
What malicious UGC would you even deliver over this domain? An image with scam instructiins? CSAM isn't even in scope for Safe Browsing, just phishing and malware.
It's not a "service" at all. It's Google maliciously inserting themselves into the browsing experience of users, including those that consciously choose a non-Google browser, in order to build a global web censorship system.
>You might not think it is, but internet is filled utterly dangerous, scammy, phisy, malwary websites
Google is happy to take their money and show scammy ads. Google ads are the most common vector for fake software support scams. Most people google something like "microsoft support" and end up there. Has Google ever banned their own ad domains?
Google is the last entity I would trust to be neutral here.
The argument would work better if Google wasn't the #1 distributor of scams and malware in the world with adsense. (Which strangely isn't flagged by safe browsing, maybe a coincidence)
[flagged]
> Imagine defending the most evil, trillion dollar corp
Hyperbole much?
Don't forget to get your worthless fiat pay check from Google adsense for a successful shilling campaign!
Not at all.
[flagged]
What is Safari getting by using Safe Browsing?
Is this a rhetoric question? Safari is just a middleman. G offers seemingly free services in exchange of your data and in order to get a market monopoly. Then they can sell you to their advertisers, squeeze out the competition and become the only Sheriff in town. How many free lunches you have got in your career?
”Competition is for losers.” -Peter Thiel
[flagged]
You should not be downvoted. Either HN has had an influx of ignorant normies or it's google bots attacking any negative comments
People working for famous adtech companies don't like it when people like op burst their bubble. I myself don't like it one bit - keep on changing the world you beautiful geniuses!
Exactly! Most of HN users work for "big tech" and are complete sell outs to their corporate overlords. Majority of them are to blame for the current bloated state of the web along with excessive mass surveillance and anti-privacy state we are in
HN is extremely tone-policed. Lines like "holy shit look in a mirror" are likely to attract downvotes because of their form, with no other factors being considered.
It's full of people described in this blog post [1]. As it concludes, GTFO! Flagging is the IRL equivalent of crying to your superior instead of actually having an argument which is pathetic
[1] - https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2025/10/15/pathe...
HN flagging is just shadow moderation.
I asked dang if I was shadowbanned from flagging. He said yes, if I flag something then it doesn't count because I flagged the wrong things in the past.
The conclusion is that flagging isn't really up to user choice, but is up to dang who decides which things should be flagged and which shouldn't. It's a bit like how on Reddit, the only comments you can see are the ones that agree with the moderators of that subreddit.