Comment by hirundo
5 years ago
Is there any reason that Google couldn't, or wouldn't, repurpose Google Safe Browsing to blacklist sites that are "unsafe" due to under- or poorly moderated content? E.g. doing this to Parler after they find hosting again? I can't think of a reliable one.
There's a very obvious reason not to do that: if you apparently maliciously cry wolf a few times, people won't trust your cries any more, and, for example, other browsers might choose to stop using the Google Safe Browsing list.
No, I don't think that's how it would play out.
1. Google bans parler.com on Jan. 8th by adding it as an "unsafe URL" to their blacklist.
2. Mozilla issues statement: "While we don't believe it was prudent to use the Safe Browsing blacklist for this purpose, given recent events, we will not be unblocking parler.com, and do not currently deem it necessary to maintain a separate safe browsing list."
3. Something similar happens a few months from now, and this time there's no statement from Mozilla or Microsoft. It has now become accepted that blacklisting less-moderated social media, which can cause real-world harm, is a normal use for the Safe Browsing list.
The problem is, if a mainstream browser goes against the flow, it becomes "The Nazi Browser." Its market share was already less than Chrome's, and now it's getting all these new users who are outcasts. This is a Hard Problem of moderation in a small market. You can't be the one out of three players who moderates less, lest you be overwhelmed by undesirables and less-desirables.
I can't tell if this is true or not - was parler.com actually blocked with this mechanism?
1 reply →
I guess just entirely inventing the slope and start points as well as a predicted trajectory is a new achievement in "slippery slope" arguments. Congratulations.
More seriously, maybe invent imaginary third parties rather than arbitrarily assigning your imagined bad motives and awful consequences to real people who did none of what you've suggested?
Google could, if they wanted, just add a new category to Safe Browsing. They could call it "Arbitrary censorship" or "Nazis are bad" or whatever you want. There are already several categories which even use slightly different parameters for the core technology so this wouldn't substantially change the system and yet would add much more flexibility if you wanted (as you might well) to protect against Phishing whether from Nazis or not, while still visiting a popular web site organising the overthrow of American democracy.
1 reply →
The problem is, if a mainstream browser goes against the flow, it becomes "The Nazi Browser." Its market share was already less than Chrome's, and now it's getting all these new users who are outcasts.
This whole problem only started because browsers stopped being neutral to the content and basically adopted the harmful "if you're not with us, you're against us" stance that seems to be propagating through everything these days. None of the "smaller" browsers (and I mean smaller than Firefox - the Dillos, Netsurfs, and Lynxes) do anything like this.
Author here. I think it's too late in the cycle for that. This list is too widespread and anyone that is banned from it needs to immediately work around the issue somehow, therefore reducing the visibility of the problems.
So what would they use instead? It's not like there are any other free, real-time and mostly accurate malicious-URL databases around for people to plug into their browsers and products.
Nothing at all. Many people survive exposure to the internet without being protected by corporate firewalls, think-of-the-children filters and antivirus.
Or do we expect UK citizens to curl up in fetal position and start screaming as soon as they leave their country because they're no longer protected by their ISP filters?
2 replies →
Perhaps “comes the hour, comes the man” would apply? It's a difficult problem, but if there was an urgent need for a solution, I'm sure one could be found.
I would agree, but "apparently maliciously" is too subjective.
According to US conservatives this is what Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, Twilio, Snapchat, etc all did to Parler for political reasons.
According to US progressives/liberals it was absolutely not malicious, but rather the polar opposite: protecting people.
These days there is no common agreement on that stuff, and given the recent events I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't do as GP asked.
Sounds like a full inversion of terms "conservative" and "progressive/liberal" has happened?
1 reply →
What other browsers? Almost all users of SB are using Chrome.
Firefox and Safari. I know, Chrome is huge these days and it's a problem, but it's not like anything can be done about Chrome.
2 replies →
Users would start to ignore the warnings and proceed anyway, or even turn safe browsing off.