It's the result of failures across the web, really. Most browsers started using Google's phishing site index because they didn't want to maintain one themselves but wanted the phishing resistance Google Chrome has. Microsoft has SmartScreen, but that's just the same risk model but hosted on Azure.
Google's eternal vagueness is infuriating but in this case the whole setup is a disaster waiting to happen. Google's accidental fuck-up just prevented "someone hacked my server after I clicked on pr-xxxx.imiche.app" because apparently the domain's security was set up to allow for that.
You can turn off safe browsing if you don't want these warnings. Google will only stop you from visiting sites if you keep the "allow Google to stop me from visiting some sites" checkbox enabled.
I really don't know how they got nerds to think scummy advertising is cool. If you think about it, the thing they make money on - no user actually wants ads or wants to see them, ever. Somehow Google has some sort of nerd cult that people think its cool to join such an unethical company.
If you ask, the leaders in that area of Google will tell you something like "we're actually HELPING users because we're giving them targeted ads that are for the things they're looking for at the time they're looking for it, which only makes things for the user better." Then you show them a picture of YouTube ads or something and it transitions to "well, look, we gotta pay for this somehow, and at least's it's free, and isn't free information for all really great?"
It's super simple. Check out all the Fediverse alternatives. How many people that talk a big game actually financially support those services? 2% maybe, on the high end.
Things cost money, and at a large scale, there's either capitalism, or communism.
Google's services, especially their free services, are never really free. It's just that the price tag is so well hidden that ordinary users really believe this. But the HN audience is more technical than that and they see through the smokescreen.
Except for those that are making money off adds directly or indirectly, and who believe in their god given right to my attention and my data.
> I'm increasingly blown away by takes on here that are so dramatic and militant about things that barely even register to most people.
Things 'barely even registering to most people' is not as strong a position as you may think it is. Oxygen barely registers to most people. But take it away and they register it just fine (for a short while). The 'regular' people that you know have been steadily conditioned to an ever worsening experience to the point that they barely recognize the websites they visit when seeing the web with an adblocker for the first time.
It's just that the price tag is so well hidden that ordinary users really believe this.
And if they die believing that, what price did they really pay? I don't think the difference mostly comes down to a lack of knowledge or understanding, but more a difference of care or assigned value. There are a lot of smart people on HN, but with that often comes exaggerated anxieties and paranoias. If most people don't give a crap about giving their data to Google or allowing the big bad advertisements to penetrate their feeble minds or whatever, vociferously beating that drum just amounts to old-man-yelling-at-cloud-esque FUD.
Things 'barely even registering to most people' is not as strong a position as you may think it is.
I understand that logically that is neither here nor there, it was more just an expression of exasperation. It's kind of like how I'm equally blown away by how much energy some people put into anti-abortion laws. It's like, ok, everyone can have their opinions, and there's plenty of reasonable discussion to be had, but to put so much negative energy into something that's like, is this really the battle that's worth this much outrage right now? There are literally genocides and violent deportations going on around us. Google are not the bad guys.
Also, I don't use any kind of ad blocker. There are definitely lots of ad-infested unusable experiences out there but Google products are generally among the classiest and most unobtrusive.
The people that put effort into anti-abortion laws are usually trying to force their view of how other people should live onto those other people.
I block ads out of my life because I am easily distracted and have seen the internet go from a great place to a billboard that continuously screams at me for my attention. It's pure self-preservation, I don't begrudge you your 45 minutes of advertising time per day at all.
The anti-abortion example was extreme and perhaps uncalled for but I just really think there are numerous social issues far more worthy of dumping ire into, and that point has not really been contested by anyone in this thread. Why is this so important to this segment of people?
Curious how you arrived at the 45 minute figure. Maybe back in the day if you watched TV with commercials all day. Even watching YouTube all day I doubt I could break 15. Ads on Instagram, Facebook, most Google products, often consume a fraction of a second to get past. I will grant that there is a pervasiveness and we are exposed to a higher number of ads in the fabric of our daily lives than before and I agree that it is distasteful and inelegant but again, at the end of the day...really doesn't seem like that big of a "problem" for society, especially when you do consider the upside of all of the free things people get from ad-supported models. YouTube is an absolute godsend for dissemination of information and knowledge at the fingertips of every individual with a connected device so who really gives a damn if you have to watch a few ads? This is the evil in the world we're gonna crusade against?
And the crazy thing is, with targeted ads and so many niche products and companies out there, sometimes you actually see something you would like to buy! HN: Ugh, disgusting, you buy things?
They created the largest spying instrument in the world that creates hidden profiles (that can never be deleted) documenting web activity, psychological state, medications, etc, etc for billions of people - and have been caught multiple times sharing data with governments (they're probably compromised internally anyway). I would categorize that as unethical. But yeah, you can cheer for the scraps they throw out.
>about things that barely even register to most people.
News flash: This whole website is about things that don't register to most people. It's called hacker news FFS.
In any case, I think a trillion dollar company probably doesn't need defending. They can easily tweak their algorithm to bury this type of stuff; after all this opinion is probably not "relevant" or "useful" to most people.
Yeah I mean it's a huge company that has many heads and I'm not trying to say that they've never done anything unethical or taken missteps to be corrected. But on the whole, the evilness or dangerousness to the health and well-being of (for example) American citizens of what you describe pales in comparison to so many bigger problems that are facing this country (homelessness, medical care, wealth inequality, authoritarianism, bigotry, the military-industrial complex, supporting foreign genocides, the list goes on...).
Why should the average American give a shit about profiles being built and data being shared with governments? Virtually all of the danger of that is so hypothetical and far removed from the real terrors that many people are facing (please don't pull up an example of a greyhat-type individual that arguably wrongfully got caught up).
In any case, I think a trillion dollar company probably doesn't need defending.
So you just want a punching bag to bitch at? I'm not doing it for their sake, I'm doing it for yours. Crusading against Google, which has actually provided a lot of value to a lot of people and continues to do so, feels a bit myopic to me.
On this day, only Google Maps does not have real competitor on Android. Otherwise, it is possible to drop Google and even get better services. Brands are difficult to compete.
You're right but I hate that you're right. The only part I disagree with is
>I think they all are pretty happy with the deal and would not switch to a paid ad-free version.
If they were given a low friction option to pay the advertise price for these services I think a lot would choose it. Advertisement pays almost nothing per person. Almost every person could pay more than the cost to serve them an ad. To use a service ad free for a year would cost less than $1 per user. This differs on the platform obviously with stuff like youtube being far more expensive but for day to day stuff the cost is low.
