← Back to context

Comment by jdsalaro

5 years ago

> I think another take away from this article is “don’t allow users to upload malicious files to your domain”

I disagree, at which point did we all accept Google's role as defacto regulator and arbiter of the Internet? Why should we tacitly accept the constraints they deem as appropriate and modify the way we build the web?

In other words, those are our domains, our apps, our systems and we'll do as we please; that includes worrying about content moderation, or not.

When and why did we accept google as the Internet's babysitter?

Apologies if this sounds aggressive, but your takeaway reflects an appalling and quite fatalistic mindset; one which I sadly believe is increasingly common: big corporations knows best, big corporations say and we do, big corporations lead the way.

On the other hand, probably I'm just biased and tired considering how tiresome it's been to explain to my friends and family why Signal is the better alternative after the WhatsApp/Facebook fiasco.

/EndRant

When you installed their browser.

Sorry, but you don't get to tell me I am obligated to browse your site without being notified if you have malware.

  • You are not obligated to browse anything. In fact, you as a human is obligated to very little. Perhaps keeping yourself alive (which somebody might even oppose as an obligation).

    If you enter at site that hosts articles on malware and it allows you to download the malware assets to play with for yourself, you should be a fool for not understanding that the site hosts malware and is not adversarial.

  • Assuming that this site "serving malware" isn't doing it purposely.

    What if someone made a site that inspected malware and went in depth on how it worked and allowed you to download the malware to inspect yourself so you desire. Google would flag this site as bad and blacklist it, but in reality it's a research site.