5 ms·

Spoiler: no, sometimes flags safe content from shady sources.

moepstar 8y ago
Saved me some time reading, thanks (also, Betteridge's Law)... Guess it's the same for IE - i've had a few issues with executables that probably don't see many downloads... ...no, i don't use it voluntarily - but sometimes have to at work...
klez 8y ago
In my book, flagging as malware something that is not malware is lying, or at least a false positive. So, spoiler: it's a bit more nuanced than "yes" or "no".
- ska 8y ago
  In my book, there is a lot of distance between "lying" and "false positive"
  - klibertp 8y ago
    Which really shrinks when it's about presenting the known-failible process as 100% reliable, which the wording/UX seem to suggest in this case. I can understand the reasoning behind this, I've seen it done multiple times to my own projects by the UX guys. I don't really know if it's net-positive strategy or not, but the fact that there is a lie involved at some level is undeniable. At least to those who didn't drink too much Kool-Aid and don't think the average user is too stupid to comprehend the truth, and therefore that it makes no sense to present it to the users. I may be biased in the other direction, but every time I see a discussion about "dark patterns" in UI I get a feeling that they differ from the "light" ones only in what is the goal of the manipulation, but with methods surprisingly similar on both sides.
yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
... so, materially yes? As a user, I don't care that they have an excuse, I care that they said "this file is a virus" when the file was not a virus.
- Piskvorrr 8y ago
  Not really. "Lying" includes an intent to deceive. I would have been okay with "raises false alarms", "generates false positive" or even "confuses and/or misleads users". As a user, I want to be better safe than sorry - but would perhaps be happier with a finer classification than "no problem/OMG VIRUS!"
  - themarkn 8y ago
    I agree that finer classification is needed. However: if you decide to declare to a user that every individual file that might contain a virus does contain a virus, that's intentionally deceiving them. It's deciding "X% of the time, this statement will not be true, and we are ok with that" instead of building the uncertainty into the statement itself. So I don't see how this can not be considered lying, unless they believed there would be no false positives.
  - xg15 8y ago
    Until the moment where you really need that file.
    - howard941 8y ago
      This. Firefox has become far more aggressive in policing use. For ex., if HTTPS is misconfigured 60.0.2 no longer offers an option for one time exceptions, now there's only 'get me out of here' and 'report to mozilla' buttons. Perhaps someone more familiar with ff's config knobs will post the knob name.
      - Liquid_Fire 8y ago
        I'm running 60.0.2 and I still have the option to add an exception, under "Advanced". What you describe only happens when the site is so badly misconfigured that no connection is possible (e.g. protocol errors).
      - garaetjjte 8y ago
        You cannot add exception for domain using HSTS.

Saved me some time reading, thanks (also, Betteridge's Law)... Guess it's the same for IE - i've had a few issues with executables that probably don't see many downloads... ...no, i don't use it voluntarily - but sometimes have to at work...

klez 8y ago

In my book, flagging as malware something that is not malware is lying, or at least a false positive. So, spoiler: it's a bit more nuanced than "yes" or "no".

ska 8y ago
In my book, there is a lot of distance between "lying" and "false positive"
- klibertp 8y ago
  Which really shrinks when it's about presenting the known-failible process as 100% reliable, which the wording/UX seem to suggest in this case. I can understand the reasoning behind this, I've seen it done multiple times to my own projects by the UX guys. I don't really know if it's net-positive strategy or not, but the fact that there is a lie involved at some level is undeniable. At least to those who didn't drink too much Kool-Aid and don't think the average user is too stupid to comprehend the truth, and therefore that it makes no sense to present it to the users. I may be biased in the other direction, but every time I see a discussion about "dark patterns" in UI I get a feeling that they differ from the "light" ones only in what is the goal of the manipulation, but with methods surprisingly similar on both sides.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago

... so, materially yes? As a user, I don't care that they have an excuse, I care that they said "this file is a virus" when the file was not a virus.

Piskvorrr 8y ago
Not really. "Lying" includes an intent to deceive. I would have been okay with "raises false alarms", "generates false positive" or even "confuses and/or misleads users". As a user, I want to be better safe than sorry - but would perhaps be happier with a finer classification than "no problem/OMG VIRUS!"
- themarkn 8y ago
  I agree that finer classification is needed. However: if you decide to declare to a user that every individual file that might contain a virus does contain a virus, that's intentionally deceiving them. It's deciding "X% of the time, this statement will not be true, and we are ok with that" instead of building the uncertainty into the statement itself. So I don't see how this can not be considered lying, unless they believed there would be no false positives.
- xg15 8y ago
  Until the moment where you really need that file.
  - howard941 8y ago
    This. Firefox has become far more aggressive in policing use. For ex., if HTTPS is misconfigured 60.0.2 no longer offers an option for one time exceptions, now there's only 'get me out of here' and 'report to mozilla' buttons. Perhaps someone more familiar with ff's config knobs will post the knob name.
    - Liquid_Fire 8y ago
      I'm running 60.0.2 and I still have the option to add an exception, under "Advanced". What you describe only happens when the site is so badly misconfigured that no connection is possible (e.g. protocol errors).
    - garaetjjte 8y ago
      You cannot add exception for domain using HSTS.