Yeah, sure, 5 years after google flagged one of the sites i hosted, some firewalls (including isp-level blocks) mark the domain as unsafe. Google removed the block after more than a week but the stink continues until today.
It was also a development domain and we were forced to change it.
I think that marking things as “safe” could have more complications than this depending on their definition but I think you’re right that’s probably all this issue is. This is almost the only sane comment here. Everyone else seems to be frothing at the mouth and I’m guessing its a decent mix of not understanding much of how these systems work (and blindly running tutorials for those that do self host) and blind ideology (big companies are bad / any practice that restricts my personal freedom in any way is bad)
any practice that restricts my personal freedom in any way is bad
Yes? I don’t want to live in a world where giant companies decide what I can and cannot see. And big companies are bad, they act as pseudo governments that aren’t accountable to anyone, we used to break them apart before they started buying up politicians and political power.
I’m not sure how what you said either: justifies the comments not fitting that label; justifies that “any practice that restricts my personal freedom in any way is bad” is a practical ideology; or even establishes much a link between what you’ve quoted and what you’ve said. And I think you need to be doing one of those to be making a counter argument
I don’t blame people for thinking that something is off after reading the linked blog post. This wouldn’t be the first time Google does something like this to OSS that poses some kind of potential threat to their business model (this is also mentioned in the post).
The URLs mentioned in their blog article all have a wrong certificate (different host name).
I am sure if they fix it Google’s system would reclassify the sites as safe.
Yeah, sure, 5 years after google flagged one of the sites i hosted, some firewalls (including isp-level blocks) mark the domain as unsafe. Google removed the block after more than a week but the stink continues until today.
It was also a development domain and we were forced to change it.
I think that marking things as “safe” could have more complications than this depending on their definition but I think you’re right that’s probably all this issue is. This is almost the only sane comment here. Everyone else seems to be frothing at the mouth and I’m guessing its a decent mix of not understanding much of how these systems work (and blindly running tutorials for those that do self host) and blind ideology (big companies are bad / any practice that restricts my personal freedom in any way is bad)
Yes? I don’t want to live in a world where giant companies decide what I can and cannot see. And big companies are bad, they act as pseudo governments that aren’t accountable to anyone, we used to break them apart before they started buying up politicians and political power.
Agreed after the yes.
I’m not sure how what you said either: justifies the comments not fitting that label; justifies that “any practice that restricts my personal freedom in any way is bad” is a practical ideology; or even establishes much a link between what you’ve quoted and what you’ve said. And I think you need to be doing one of those to be making a counter argument
I don’t blame people for thinking that something is off after reading the linked blog post. This wouldn’t be the first time Google does something like this to OSS that poses some kind of potential threat to their business model (this is also mentioned in the post).