The bigger issue is that the internet needs governance. And, in the absence of regulation, someone has stepped in and done it in a way that the author didn't like.

Perhaps we could start by requiring that Google provide ways to contact a living, breathing human. (Not an AI bot that they claim is equivalent.)

> Static site hosting you can trust

is more like amateur hour static site hosting you can’t trust. Sorry.

I have read A LOT of blogs/rants/incidents on social media about startups, small businesses, and individuals getting screwed by large companies in similar capacities. I am VERY sympathetic to those cries into the sky, shaking fists at clouds, knowing very well we are all very small and how the large providers seem to not care. With that in mind, I am not blind to the privilege my organization has to rope in Google to discuss root causes for incidents.

I am writing about it here because I believe most people will never be able to pull a key Google stakeholder into a 40 minute video call to deeply discuss the RCAs. The details of the discussion are probably protected by NDA so I'll be speaking in general terms.

Google has a product called Web Risk (https://cloud.google.com/web-risk/docs/overview), I hear it's mostly used by Google Enterprise customers in regulated verticals and some large social media orgs. Web Risk protects the employees of these enterprise organizations by analyzing URLs for indicators of risk, such as phishing, brand impersonation, etc.

My SaaS platform is well established and caters mostly to large enterprise. I provide enterprise customers with optional branded SSO landing pages. Customers can either use sign-in from the branded site (SP-initiated) or redirect from their own internal identity provider to sign-in (IdP-initiated). The SSO site branding is directed by the customer, think along the lines of what Microsoft does for Entra ID branded sign-in pages. Company logo(s), name, visual styling, and other verbiage may be included. The branded/vanity FQDN is (company).productname.mydomain.com.

You may be able to see where I'm headed at this point... Why was my domain blocked? For suspected phishing.

A mutual enterprise customer was subscribed to Google's Web Risk. When their employees navigated to their SSO site, Google scanned it. Numerous heuristics flagged the branded SSO site as phishing and we were blocked by Safe Browsing across all major web browsers (Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and probably others). Google told us that had our customer put the SSO site on their Web Risk allow-list, we wouldn't have been blocked.

I'm no spring chicken, I cannot rely nor expect a customer to do that, so I pressed for more which led to a lengthy conversation on risk and the seemingly, from my perspective, arbitrary decisions made by a black box without any sort of feedback loop.

I was provided a tiny bit of insight into the heuristic secret sauce, which led to prescribed guidance on what could be done to greatly reduce the risk of getting false positive flag for phishing again. Those specifics I assume I cannot detail here, however the overall gist of it is domain reputation. Google was unable to positively ascertain my domain's reputation.

My recommendation is for those of you out there in the inter-tubes who have experienced false positive Safe Browsing blocks, think about what you can do to increase your domain's public reputation. Also, get a GCP account so if you do get blocked, you can open a ticket from that portal. I was told it would be escalated to the appropriate team and be actioned on within 10-15 minutes.

That list doesn't have a clear way to get off of it. I would be happy to give them the heads up that their users are complaining about a website being broken, but there is no such thing, neither for users nor for me. In looking around, there's many "sources" that allegedly independently decided around the same day that my site needs to not work anymore, so now there's a dozen parties I need to talk to and more popping up the further you look. Netcraft started sending complaints to the registrar (which got the whole domain put on hold), some other list said they sent abuse to the IP space owner (my ISP), public resolvers have started delisting the domain (pretending "there is no such domain" by returning NXDOMAIN), as well as the mentioned adblockers

There's only one person who hasn't been contacted: the owner. I could actually do something about the abusive content...

It's like the intended path is that users start to complaint "your site doesn't work" (works for me, wdym?) and you need to figure out what software is it they're using, what DNS resolver they use, what antivirus, what browser, if a DOH provider is enabled... to find out who it might be that's breaking the site. People don't know how many blocklists they're using, and the blocklists don't give a shit if you're not a brand name they recognize. That's the only difference between my site and a place like Github: if I report "github.com hosts malware", nobody thinks "oh, we need to nuke that malicious site asap!"

I'd broaden the submitted post to say that it's not only Google with too much power, but these blocklists have no notification mechanism or general recourse method. It's a whack-a-mole situation which, as an open source site with no profit model (intentionally so), I will never win. Big tech is what wins. Idk if these lists do a trademark registration check or how they decide who's okay and who's not, but I suspect it's simply a brand name thing and your reviewer needs to know you

> Luckily, Google provided me with a helpful list of the offending sites

Google is doing better than most others with that feature. Most "intelligence providers", which other blocklists like e.g. Quad9 uses, are secretive about why they're listing you, or never even respond at all

I love that IT is a field where there's no required formal education track and you can succeed with any learning path, but we definitely need some better way to make sure new devs are learning about some of these gotchas.

On top of that, it is also recommended to serve user content from another domain for security reasons. It's much easier to avoid entire classes of exploits this way. For the site admins: treat it as a learning experience instead of lashing out on goog. In the long run you'll be better off, having learned a good lesson.

Like i get that google has a lot of power, but you think they would use a case where google was actually in the wrong.

How does any of that lead to your asking if I think humans === bots?

XKCD 1053 is not a valid excuse for what amounts to negligence in a production service.

Strict cookies crossing root to subdomains would be a major security bug in browsers. It's always been a (valid) theoretical concern but it's never happened on a large scale to the point I've had to address it. There is likely regression testing on all the major browsers that will catch a situation where this happens.

... by using the agreed-upon tool to track domains that treat themselves as TLDs for third-party content: the public suffix list. Microsoft Edge and Firefox also use the PSL and their mechanisms for protecting users would be similarly suspicious that attacks originating from statichost.eu were originating from the owners of that domain and not some third-party that happened to independently control foo.statichost.eu.

I have mixed opinions about discord and if I can be honest, I have mixed opinions about forums as well

My opinion is to take things like forums and transfer them over to things like xmpp/(Irc?)/(signal?)/(matrix most prefered)

There are bridges as well for matrix <-> Irc if this is something that interests you, there are bridges for everything but I prefer matrix with cinny and I generally think that due to its decentralized nature, it might be better than centralized forums maybe as well.

Almost none, but it's due to a lot of complicated factors and not just the direct risk of user content.

Take moderation of content that won't get you banned by your ISP. It sucks. Nobody in their right mind would want to do it. There are countless bots and trolls that are going to flood your forums for whatever cause they champion.

Then there is DDOS floods because you pissed off said bots and trolls. This can make the forums unaffordable and piss off your ISP.

But even if nothing goes wrong, popularity is a risk in itself. In the past there was stuff like the Slashdot effect where your site would go down for a while. But now if your small site became popular on tiktok for some reason 20 million people could show up. Even if your site can stand up to that, how will you moderate it? How will you pay for the bandwidth?

Oh, and will you get any advertisers because of said user content? How are you going to pay for the site?

Oh, also you're competing with massive sites for eyeballs, how are you going to get actual users?

Whitepapers aren't the sole domain of academia. What we are talking about aren't hosted on Arxiv. We are talking about industry working groups.

The M3AAWG working group, and browser/CA forum publish RFCs and Whitepapers that professionals in this area do read regularly.

There's been insufficient/no professional outreach about PSL. You can't just do things at large players without disclosure for interop, because you harm others by doing so neglecting the imposing fallout from lack of disclosure on everyone else that's impacted within your sphere of influence which as a company running the second most popular browser is global.

When you do so without first doing certain reasonable and expected things (of any professional organization), you are being grossly negligent. This is sufficient to prove general intent for malice in many cases, a reasonable person in such circumstances should have known better.

This paves the way for proving tortuous or vexatious interference of a contract which is a tort and punishable by law when brought against the entity.

> The PSL is surely an imperfect solution but its solving the problem for the moment.

It is not, because the disclosure hasn't happened properly for interop, and in such circumstances it predictably creates a mountain of problems without visibility; a timebomb/poison pill where crisis arises from the brittle structure later following shock doctrine utilizing the snowball effect (a common tactic of the corrupt and deceiver alike).

Your entire line of reasoning which you constructed is critically flawed. You presume trust is important to this, and that such systems require trust, but trust doesn't have anything to do with the reputational metrics which the systems we are talking about are using to impose cost. Apples to Oranges.

You can't enumerate badness. Lots of professionals know this. Historic reputational blacklists also punish those that are innocent after-the-fact when not properly disclosed, or engineered for due process. A permanent record deprives anyone from using a blacklisted entry after it changes hands from the criminal to some unsuspecting person.

Your reasoning specifically frames a false dichotomy about security. This follows almost identically the same reasoning the Nazi's used (ref at the bottom).

No one is arguing that Safe Browsing and other mechanisms are useful as mitigation, but they are temporary solutions that must be disclosed to a detailed level that allows interoperability to become possible.

If you only tell your friends, and impose those draconian costs on everyone else, you are abusing your privileged position of trust for personal gain (a form of corruption), and causing harm on others even if you can't see it.

Chrome does not have an opt-out. You have to re-compile the browser from scratch to turn those subsystems off. Same with Firefox. That is not allowing you to disable that feature since users aren't reasonably expected to be able to recompile their software to change a setting.

There is no idealism/pacifism here. I'm strictly being pragmatic.

You neglect the harm you don't directly see, in the costs imposed on business. Second, Third, and n-order effects must be considered but have not been (this must necessarily grow in consideration based on the scope/scale of impact).

There are a few areas where doing such blind things may directly threaten existential matters (i.e. food production where failure of logistics lead to shortages, which whipsaw into chaos). It won't happen immediately, and we live in a growingly brittle but still somewhat resilient society, but it will happen eventually if such harm is adopted and allowed as standard practice; though the method is indirect the scope starts off large.

If you only look through a lens at a small part of the cycle of the dynamics that favors your argument which you set in motion, ignoring everything else; that is called cherry-picking or also commonly known as the fallacy of isolation.

Practically speaking, that line of reasoning is without foundational support and unsound. Its important to properly discern and reason about things as they actually exist in reality.

Competent professionalism is not an idealistic perspective. The harm naturally comes when one doesn't meet well established professional requirements. When the rule of law fails to hold destructive people to account for their actions; that's a three-alarm fire as a warning sign of impending societal collapse. The harms of which are incalculable.

Ref: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.

(Your implications follow this part closely): That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

    -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

I guess control-panel.statichost.eu is still possible, of course, but that already seems like a pretty long shot.

Testing on IE6 wasn't the requirement, all browser's was. IE shipped default on windows and basically forced themselves into the browser conversation with an incomplete browser.

On the whole of YouTube, it's a tiny sliver of a percentage, but because YouTube has grown too large to moderate, it's still hosting these videos.

If Google applied the same rules they apply to the safe browsing list, they'd probably get YouTube flagged multiple times a week.

There is. It is called ponzi, and its illegal, but in most cases its become indirect enough in the consequences without proper guard rails/accountability that its now allowed by most publicly traded business today (through clever deception).

Generally, it involves three phases:

1st: Front-loaded benefits in CapEx funding meeting customer/investor expectations regardless of cost.

2nd: Inflection point of momentum where CapEx falls off, a brief period where income meets costs.

3rd: Enshittification - momentum/acceleration reverses to the negative, failure of services as the system is continually hollowed out and cost exceeds income.

This is seen in the S-growth or S-adoption curves in business starting to become visible towards the late 1970s and progressively increasing exponentially thereafter in time.

Most companies jettison (sell/off or merge) or close down services before they hit the 3rd stage where the service objectively can be seen as unprofitable by associated investors. The ones that don't are state-funded apparatus.

This concept drives almost everything we see today in modern society and in the market there are parallels and indirect consequences fully described back in the 1950's by Mises with regards to money-printing regardless of its form (i.e. debt that is not reserve backed (Basel3), synthetic shares, paper warrants (Comex), Bonds (with reporting loophole hold to maturity), flier miles, credit card rewards, etc).

The structure and its flaws remain foundationally intractable. This is how you profit and grow bigger off destroying the market. Eventually consolidation leaves state apparatus in place of a market.

No market can compete with slave labor, which is what state-funded apparatus use indirectly through money-printing/currency debasement. Its not considered a tax, and its not given willingly. Its extracted labor.

Those that have lived through these times see the drastic reduction of options in available products that have naturally sieved to the point where shortages are now regularly occuring (for those with a discerning eye). There are a lot of moving factors, but the structure and their inevitable trends are well known structures, at least in certain circles.

In seriousness, the totality of Socio-economic collapse is more probable than a lot of other potential futures, as a result of this. Collapse has happened many times throughout history in relation to money-printing.

Always before, we were not in ecological overshoot for our population, let alone being in this state for 2 full generations. Catton/Malthus paint a grim picture of the outcomes but no one of action pays attention to these things. Its all largely drowned out by the noise of bots.

I think most people working in tech know the extent to which Google can screw over a business when they make a mistake, but the gravity of the situation becomes much clearer when it actually happens to you.

This time it's a phishing website, but what if the same happens five years down the line because of an unflattering page about a megalomaniac US politician?

Well, this is a problem that caused the author's ignorance but you present it as though it's the other way around. That's primarily what I meant. Not really disagreeing with "should have known better", mostly in the sense that user-generated content is a huge yellow flag.

But you're right, complaining about big tech surveillance didn't help with making that point at all.

My comment about vitriol was more directed at the HN commenters than Eric himself. Really, I think a discussion about web infrastructure is more interesting than a hatefest on Google. Thankfully, the balance seems to have shifted since I posted my top-level comment.

Helping people avoid potentially devastating mistakes is of course a good thing.

The idea to segment certain types of traffic to different domains isn't that new. For example segmenting certain mail servers by marketing or transactional types into subdomains was done as far back as 2010, but it wasn't explained in whitepapers until around 2016 or 2017, where there was already gathered irrefutable evidence that reputational systems had been put in place and the rules for those damaged people running small email servers who were being illegitimately blocked from delivery; for years with no recourse or disclosure just imposed cost.

Once they published the whitepapers on that, professionals were on board because they specified what they were looking for, and how it should function. Basic Engineering stuff that people who manage and build these systems need to know to interoperate.

These things need professional outreach that standardizes it in some form or another, that's not a one-off blog post imo, and that must fully specify function, requirement, feedback mechanisms, and expectations of how its supposed to work; basic engineering stuff.

The PSL is just the same thing all over again. Big Tech just starts doing something silently that directly imposes cost on others, they don't say what they are doing. Then when it becomes too costly they try to offload it to others calling for support, though if they only do halfsies in a blog post buried in noise, they are only looking for plausible deniability.

The benefit in doing this is in anti-competitive behavior.

Incidentally, while separating subdomains for email servers has been standard practice for awhile now, recently these companies once again changed the reputational weights for things, and they aren't talking. Now its a whole domain as a single reputational namespace not just breakage at the subdomain (bb.aa.com.). No outreach on that as far as I've seen.

There are ways to do things correctly, and then there are ways to do things anti-competitively and coercively. The incentives matched to the outcomes point to which one that happens to be.

How you do something is more important than that you did something in these cases.

If you as a company don't do professional outreach about such changes or standards, and you arbitrarily choose to require something that isn't properly disclosed punishing everyone that hasn't received disclosure; that in my mind is a fair and reasonable case for either gross negligence (for general intent to prove malice) or tortuous interference with third-party companies businesses.

That question which you mentioned about asking in an interview (iirc) was actually asked in an Ignite interview, but was cut out from the recordings later, and the answer was we can't talk about what other departments are doing. They may have followed-up on that elsewhere but I never saw anything related to it.

It is critically important to know the reasons why things are structured a certain way or happen; in order to be able to interoperate. This is and has been known and repeated many times since the adoption of OSI & TCP in the 80s/90s with regards to interoperability of systems.

Blindly copying what others do is a recipe for disaster and isn't justifiable in terms of cost, and competent professional's don't roll the dice like that on large projects of that caliber of expense.

This stuff isn't straight forward either. Like knowing where the reputational namespace stops, what the ramp-up time (dm/dt) is for volume metrics to warm up a server at each provider, and objective indicators associated with when you go above that arbitrarily designed rate. (hint: non-deterministic hidden states) If it takes a month to perfectly warm a new server up without reputational consequences by an insider that knows, that's extra cost imposed on the company by that platform (whom you are competing against for email services).

No disclosure means starting over every time trying to guess at what they are doing, and having breakage later when they change things.

> reddit...

A lot of professionals no longer use reddit anymore because its a bot filled echo chamber that wastes valuable time.

Moderators there often remove posts regularly for simple disagreement, conflicts of interest, or to remove access to detailed solutions or methodology.

For an example of all that's wrong there, look to that CodingBootCamp reddit. There's a guy that's a moderator there that's been, in all probability, using a bot to destroy a competitors reputation and harass them for years, attacking the owners, execs, and going so far as to harass and stalk their children; while violating the Moderator Code of Contact. Crazy and toxic stuff. ---

You can't ever meet professional standards if you don't communicate or properly disclose interop requirements when complex systems are involved.

There are required steps to follow but none are "have x users" or "see a lot of spam". It's mostly "follow proper DNS steps and guidelines in the given format" with a little "show you're doing this for the intended reason rather than to circumvent something the PSL is not meant for/for something the public can't get to anyways" (e.g. tricking rate limits, internal only or single user personal sites) added on top.