4 ms·

Do a Google search on "Jim Hood vs Google", see who he colluded with, and then come read your own post here again. In short: The MPAA/RIAA hates Google. To top

Do a Google search on "Jim Hood vs Google", see who he colluded with, and then come read your own post here again. In short: The MPAA/RIAA hates Google. To top it off, you name Chrome/Chromium as if it's the same product, and then go off on a tangent about a binary blob (voice recognition) that was included. Other comments would have gotten away with that, was it not that the whole issue here _is_ the distinction between Chrome and Chromium, the latter being an FOSS project, which has no place for closed source binary blobs. (And that was the underlying issue, not its functionality.) Some people need to be protected against themselves, for some this protection is a site block, for others it's reading more before writing drivel in the HN comment section. Link for the lazy: http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/04/11/jim-hood-attorney-general-google/25638823/ http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/04/11/jim-hood-... The block was put in place because of malware being served by those domains, blocking them is by far the easiest response and _also_ the most motivating for its hosts to undertake action. Occam's Razor seems to agree that this was a bad advertising being blocked rather than "ebil guggle conspirucy".

joesmo 11y ago
No, it's just a shitty Google product. It's not a conspiracy. That's my gripe with them not the stupid bullshit you're spewing. And honestly, as I wrote before, I don't care why they're doing it because regardless of the reason, it's unethical. The binary blob in OSS is unethical as is censoring sites, which is clearly what's happening here. If those domains had malware, why block them now and not in the many years previously. The sites' use of adware hasn't changed in years. Why block some domains going to a site but not others? It's clear that it was not done for security reasons and the fact that the list can't be modified one by one, is clear evidence google doesn't care about security. A company that requires me to turn off security to access legitimate sites does not care about security. Both of these issues are security issues, and they're both legitimate reasons by themselves to seek out a browser from a vendor that actually cares about security.
- dang 11y ago
  > the stupid bullshit you're spewing This and other comments you've posted break HN's civility rule. Please read the guidelines and follow them when posting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

joesmo 11y ago

No, it's just a shitty Google product. It's not a conspiracy. That's my gripe with them not the stupid bullshit you're spewing. And honestly, as I wrote before, I don't care why they're doing it because regardless of the reason, it's unethical. The binary blob in OSS is unethical as is censoring sites, which is clearly what's happening here. If those domains had malware, why block them now and not in the many years previously. The sites' use of adware hasn't changed in years. Why block some domains going to a site but not others? It's clear that it was not done for security reasons and the fact that the list can't be modified one by one, is clear evidence google doesn't care about security. A company that requires me to turn off security to access legitimate sites does not care about security. Both of these issues are security issues, and they're both legitimate reasons by themselves to seek out a browser from a vendor that actually cares about security.

dang 11y ago
> the stupid bullshit you're spewing This and other comments you've posted break HN's civility rule. Please read the guidelines and follow them when posting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.