7 ms·

Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol

164 points by decrypt 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
imwillofficial 6y ago
I’ve wanted this so badly for my static site blog but never found an easy way. I’m so stoked.
zaik 6y ago
This seems like an even better use of a state-synchronization protocol like Matrix than instant messaging, for which I think XMPP is a better fit.
- 177tcca 6y ago
  It's not meant to be any one thing. That's its strength. Core to many usecases, many eyes, many industries' backing.
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    > It's not meant to be any one thing. Well more so than other federated protocols. matrix has a strong emphasis on resistance to censorship and network splits, at the price of metadata leakage. In contrast, AP/XMPP assume every server is a tiny kingdom (no content is owned by more than one server). matrix usecase is really cool but could have been built on top of existing federated protocols without reinventing a new ecosystem. Can't wait for proper interoperability between the three big federated networks (Matrix, XMPP, ActivityPub). The previous discussion on HN about this topic didn't go very far: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26279906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26279906
    - 177tcca 6y ago
      There are already frameworks and services for making chatrooms and comments with Matrix protocol for using in centralized and decentralized webpages — why someone would want to hack XMPP into there, besides loyalty and familiarity, is beyond me.
      - southerntofu 6y ago
        My point was not that a commenting system should be implemented using this or that protocol (though it's likely just as easy using established AP or web<->XMPP frameworks). In fact, i believe a public commenting system is a very valid usecase of matrix's censorship-resilient decentralized rooms even though i'm not entirely sure of the consequences of that in terms of moderation/spam. I was reacting to matrix being "not meant to be any one thing". I explicitly recall matrix being marketed by the community (maybe not the devs themselves) as a modern, censorship-resilient IRC replacement that fitted in a short (single?) specification and intentionally avoided the extensibility (and associated implementation/interop failures) of the XMPP protocol. When i say matrix is a more specific use-case than other federated protocols, i mean that decentralized rooms can be implemented as a consensus-reaching algorithm on top of any federated protocol, and that's in fact what matrix servers are doing under the hood. But supporting the usecase of least-metadata-leakage in a protocol designed for sharing state across many actors is arguably trickier. For example, i believe matrix doesn't currently support per-room nicknames which don't reveal your public address to all members of the room (only to chatroom admins for ban purposes). matrix has very interesting developments with or without this specific feature, but i was highlighting that matrix is not more generic/agnostic than other federation protocols (just like XMPP isn't a "universal" protocol either). Like i'm very interested in matrix P2P ecosystem there's some really amazing stuff being developed there (pinecone), but i must say the entire matrix selling pitch is very similar to the selling pitch of XMPP more than a decade ago: "a universal bridgeable messenger". Regarding the P2P example, XMPP had offline-first "zeroconf" federation (XEP-0174) drafted in 2006. Despite being far less advanced than modern matrix P2P, it was already very similar in spirit. So my central point i guess, is not that one protocol is better than the other. They all have very strong pros and cons depending on the actual usecase. Different users, or same users across different contexts/activities may prefer one technology or the other. My point is i believe it is our responsibility as technologists to ease their life and standardize things for more interoperability so users can have a choice between "the federated networks" and "centralized silos" instead of having a choice between "centralized silos" and "tiny federated islands that mostly don't talk to one another", adjusting the balance of power in our favor which is in the direct interest of everyone involved except the corporate silicon valley sociopaths. Cory Doctorow's latest talks have pretty compelling arguments for interoperability if you have some time to spare.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  XMPP has been effectively dead for awhile. Time to move on.
  - MattJ100 6y ago
    And you're basing this on what? I do concede that XMPP is not the new shiny, but it is very far from dead. It powers more things than you realise, a few are listed at https://xmpp.org/uses/ https://xmpp.org/uses/ There is healthy growth in server count: https://blog.prosody.im/2020-retrospective/ https://blog.prosody.im/2020-retrospective/ Development is very active, across a diverse range of projects: https://xmpp.org/category/newsletter.html https://xmpp.org/category/newsletter.html
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      Whoa I had no idea! Thanks for sharing!
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    Jabber/XMPP ecosystem is far from dead. If anything, my perspective as an end-user for quite a long time is there's been more community-oriented developments in the past few years, than in the entire previous decade. Some clients/servers are unfortunately unmaintained and the XMPP Standards Foundation has a neutral position which prevents it from advertising specific clients which have good UX and modern features. But modern clients like Conversations, Dino, Siskin and Gajim are certainly good messengers with hardware and feature support i haven't seen in other ecosystems (client & server side low resource requirements, good Tor support client, and vast plugin ecosystems) though there's some dearly-missed functionality (eg. groups of chatrooms like matrix spaces). If you're curious about interesting developments, libervia (ex salut-à-toi) is the only federated piece of software i know that is selfhosting its own development (forge). Tickets and merge requests for libervia are done via libervia itself. They've been doing that for almost 3 years now, using mercurial as a backend but implemented in a way that other DVCS backends can be supported. See my blogpost about decentralized forging for more context on that https://staticadventures.netlib.re/blog/decentralized-forge/ https://staticadventures.netlib.re/blog/decentralized-forge/
CA0DA 6y ago
I'm excited about this - tried the demo, how do I know the site is not stealing my password? Shouldn't this use OAuth to solve that issue?
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  Because you don’t login via the site, you have to go through Matrix’ login flow, just like with any client.
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    Then why does the popup on Cactus ask for the password? If the matrix homeserver is responsible for the authentication, then cactus should probably only ask for a matrix identifier (user:server).
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      On a second look, I agree.
- carlbordum 6y ago
  You don't, you have to trust it just like any other Matrix client. Hopefully there will be OAuth or something similar in the Matrix spec in the future, so you can use less trusted clients. If you want to comment with your user, but don't trust the client, you can use any Matrix client with Cactus Comments by clicking "Use a Matrix client" :-)
a1371 6y ago
This is great! Any option to filter spam/hate speech automatically and not on the front-end?
- Shared404 6y ago
  This is an important question, I'm surprised to see it downvoted. That being said, I would imagine it would be done the same way as an automod type bot for any Matrix room. You'd probably have to implement it yourself though. Edit: That being said, I don't like the idea of automatic moderation. For small scale blogs, maybe just a manual approval of comments would be worthwhile.
- ta8645 6y ago
  I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious, but dealing with undesired content is handled via the usual Matrix methods[1]... since that is what underlies Cactus. You may have to self host though, i'm not sure if Cactus themselves give access to these features if you rely on them for hosting. [1] https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    Matrix is currently working on improved moderation and curation methods, right? I saw a blog post published to that effect, in response to the last administration's anti-encryption putsch.
  - nanna 6y ago
    > I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious I first encountered 'hate speech' as a wide eyed teenager in the 1990s on a gaming IRC room that I hung out in. Somehow my ethnic background came out, and it was bizarre: the entire room either turned against me with racist hate speech, adding that they knew where I lived based on my ip (didn't think this was possible, but then didn't know anyone to ask if it was) and would come beat me up or worse. Or they just went silent and wouldn't stand up for me. I asked the moderators to help and I don't think they ever replied; certainly they never did anything. It was terrifying, and it made me clock out of IRC and online gaming communities for good. So I wonder, to those who downvote someone asking about moderating (posts on your own blog!) or just consider hate speech as a term to be 'tedius' : have you ever experienced it yourself?
michaelsbradley 6y ago
When I followed the link in Firefox with the MetaMask extension installed and enabled, I was greeted with MetaMask's Ethereum Phishing Detection page: https://i.imgur.com/DSiut95.jpg https://i.imgur.com/DSiut95.jpg
- michaelsbradley 6y ago
  It seems to be a false positive in the phishing detector: https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/issues/4749 https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/issues/4749
- detaro 6y ago
  looking at the GH issues on that extension, false positives seems to be the name of the game there...
- iudqnolq 6y ago
  The detector is about twenty (inefficient) lines. Cauctus was flagged because it's similar "cactus" is similar to "auctus", which is on their known good list of domains they're checking for impersonations of. https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/blob/master/src/detector.js https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/blob/master/...
remram 6y ago
See also: Adding comments with Mastodon https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25570268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25570268
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
edent 6y ago
I'm currently using https://intensedebate.com/ https://intensedebate.com/ which, while abandonware, allows people to comment anonymously or using their Twitter & Facebook accounts. How hard would it be to add non-Matrix accounts to this service?
- southerntofu 6y ago
  Can't speak for the author about Cactus, but in my experience if you want to integrate with a lot of services for comments on your blog, you can use a widely-implemented protocol like webmention, along with a gateway like brid.gy for interfacing with centralized silos. Unfortunately Facebook shut down the brid.gy gateway a few years ago, but other silos still interoperate fine.
- anoa_ 6y ago
  Matrix is adding support for client-specific SSO identity providers: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/t3chguy/msc/multi-sso/proposals/2858-Multiple-SSO-Identity-Providers.md https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/t3chguy/msc/mu... This allows homeservers to specify trusted providers to prove identity with, which clients can then offer to their users to log in with. See this in action already with Element, the flagship Matrix client: https://app.element.io/#/login https://app.element.io/#/login You'll see that several social networks as well as Github/GitLab are offered to login with.
southerntofu 6y ago
Hello, i just tested it and it's really cool! Do you have any idea about ActivityPub / XMPP PubSub gateways for interoperability? From a remote look, it appears mxtoot is a bot not a proper AP gateway, and bifrost doesn't support PubSub XEP which is used for microblogging/commenting. Supporting these protocols directly would also be an option, but i don't know an ActivityPub server that supports guest accounts (but XMPP servers do). Too bad cactus doesn't work without JavaScript. Would it be possible in the future to support submitting a comment via simple HTML form for older/slower clients? A related annoying detail, '?' key is hijacked by JavaScript so it's impossible to type it in the comment box ;-) Thanks for this demo i'm excited for the future of federated comments
- carlbordum 6y ago
  Hi, I am one of the authors of Cactus Comments. Making Cactus Comments work without javascript would require a backend server. Right now, the frontend is actually just a special-purpose Matrix client that interacts directly with Matrix homeservers.
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    Hello, thanks for taking the time to reply. Isn't the matrix.org homeserver already a backend HTTP server? I'm unfamiliar with the matrix protocol, but isn't there a way to POST to homeserver directly so that it can authenticate and confirm with the user they intend to post this message?
imrehg 6y ago
Sidenote: The site has a small gotcha, in the demo page, if I type a text with a "?", when the question mark is typed the top right search field just gets activated and can't really type that character into the comment at all. It feels annoying user experience, though the actual comment service is great, checking whether I can use that on my site/blog instead of the current stuff.
jaggs 6y ago
No WordPress plugin?
- Gys 6y ago
  Yes: https://cactus.chat/docs/getting-started/integrations/ https://cactus.chat/docs/getting-started/integrations/
nickdothutton 6y ago
The web desperately needs a good comment system which is easy to onboard to, easy for casual commenters, and non-pathological in terms of advertising/data-gathering/advertising. I really hope one comes along.
Arathorn 6y ago
This is really cool (and will finally solve the problem of matrix.org/blog not having any comments currently!)
aabbcc1241 6y ago
Appreciate this kind of decentralized, self-hosted project/platform/system
rectang 6y ago
Looking through the docs, I don't see any mention of spam prevention or moderation. What tools are available or planned to help beleaguered site owners deal with the inevitable onslaught?
Normille 6y ago
Metamask doesn't like it: >Ethereum Phishing Detection >This domain is currently on the MetaMask domain warning list. This means that based on information available to us, MetaMask believes this domain could currently compromise your security and, as an added safety feature, MetaMask has restricted access to the site. To override this, please read the rest of this warning for instructions on how to continue at your own risk.
- Gys 6y ago
  False positive? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372767

164 points by decrypt 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

imwillofficial 6y ago

I’ve wanted this so badly for my static site blog but never found an easy way. I’m so stoked.

zaik 6y ago

This seems like an even better use of a state-synchronization protocol like Matrix than instant messaging, for which I think XMPP is a better fit.

177tcca 6y ago
It's not meant to be any one thing. That's its strength. Core to many usecases, many eyes, many industries' backing.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  > It's not meant to be any one thing. Well more so than other federated protocols. matrix has a strong emphasis on resistance to censorship and network splits, at the price of metadata leakage. In contrast, AP/XMPP assume every server is a tiny kingdom (no content is owned by more than one server). matrix usecase is really cool but could have been built on top of existing federated protocols without reinventing a new ecosystem. Can't wait for proper interoperability between the three big federated networks (Matrix, XMPP, ActivityPub). The previous discussion on HN about this topic didn't go very far: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26279906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26279906
  - 177tcca 6y ago
    There are already frameworks and services for making chatrooms and comments with Matrix protocol for using in centralized and decentralized webpages — why someone would want to hack XMPP into there, besides loyalty and familiarity, is beyond me.
    - southerntofu 6y ago
      My point was not that a commenting system should be implemented using this or that protocol (though it's likely just as easy using established AP or web<->XMPP frameworks). In fact, i believe a public commenting system is a very valid usecase of matrix's censorship-resilient decentralized rooms even though i'm not entirely sure of the consequences of that in terms of moderation/spam. I was reacting to matrix being "not meant to be any one thing". I explicitly recall matrix being marketed by the community (maybe not the devs themselves) as a modern, censorship-resilient IRC replacement that fitted in a short (single?) specification and intentionally avoided the extensibility (and associated implementation/interop failures) of the XMPP protocol. When i say matrix is a more specific use-case than other federated protocols, i mean that decentralized rooms can be implemented as a consensus-reaching algorithm on top of any federated protocol, and that's in fact what matrix servers are doing under the hood. But supporting the usecase of least-metadata-leakage in a protocol designed for sharing state across many actors is arguably trickier. For example, i believe matrix doesn't currently support per-room nicknames which don't reveal your public address to all members of the room (only to chatroom admins for ban purposes). matrix has very interesting developments with or without this specific feature, but i was highlighting that matrix is not more generic/agnostic than other federation protocols (just like XMPP isn't a "universal" protocol either). Like i'm very interested in matrix P2P ecosystem there's some really amazing stuff being developed there (pinecone), but i must say the entire matrix selling pitch is very similar to the selling pitch of XMPP more than a decade ago: "a universal bridgeable messenger". Regarding the P2P example, XMPP had offline-first "zeroconf" federation (XEP-0174) drafted in 2006. Despite being far less advanced than modern matrix P2P, it was already very similar in spirit. So my central point i guess, is not that one protocol is better than the other. They all have very strong pros and cons depending on the actual usecase. Different users, or same users across different contexts/activities may prefer one technology or the other. My point is i believe it is our responsibility as technologists to ease their life and standardize things for more interoperability so users can have a choice between "the federated networks" and "centralized silos" instead of having a choice between "centralized silos" and "tiny federated islands that mostly don't talk to one another", adjusting the balance of power in our favor which is in the direct interest of everyone involved except the corporate silicon valley sociopaths. Cory Doctorow's latest talks have pretty compelling arguments for interoperability if you have some time to spare.
imwillofficial 6y ago
XMPP has been effectively dead for awhile. Time to move on.
- MattJ100 6y ago
  And you're basing this on what? I do concede that XMPP is not the new shiny, but it is very far from dead. It powers more things than you realise, a few are listed at https://xmpp.org/uses/ https://xmpp.org/uses/ There is healthy growth in server count: https://blog.prosody.im/2020-retrospective/ https://blog.prosody.im/2020-retrospective/ Development is very active, across a diverse range of projects: https://xmpp.org/category/newsletter.html https://xmpp.org/category/newsletter.html
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    Whoa I had no idea! Thanks for sharing!
- southerntofu 6y ago
  Jabber/XMPP ecosystem is far from dead. If anything, my perspective as an end-user for quite a long time is there's been more community-oriented developments in the past few years, than in the entire previous decade. Some clients/servers are unfortunately unmaintained and the XMPP Standards Foundation has a neutral position which prevents it from advertising specific clients which have good UX and modern features. But modern clients like Conversations, Dino, Siskin and Gajim are certainly good messengers with hardware and feature support i haven't seen in other ecosystems (client & server side low resource requirements, good Tor support client, and vast plugin ecosystems) though there's some dearly-missed functionality (eg. groups of chatrooms like matrix spaces). If you're curious about interesting developments, libervia (ex salut-à-toi) is the only federated piece of software i know that is selfhosting its own development (forge). Tickets and merge requests for libervia are done via libervia itself. They've been doing that for almost 3 years now, using mercurial as a backend but implemented in a way that other DVCS backends can be supported. See my blogpost about decentralized forging for more context on that https://staticadventures.netlib.re/blog/decentralized-forge/ https://staticadventures.netlib.re/blog/decentralized-forge/

CA0DA 6y ago

I'm excited about this - tried the demo, how do I know the site is not stealing my password? Shouldn't this use OAuth to solve that issue?

imwillofficial 6y ago
Because you don’t login via the site, you have to go through Matrix’ login flow, just like with any client.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  Then why does the popup on Cactus ask for the password? If the matrix homeserver is responsible for the authentication, then cactus should probably only ask for a matrix identifier (user:server).
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    On a second look, I agree.
carlbordum 6y ago
You don't, you have to trust it just like any other Matrix client. Hopefully there will be OAuth or something similar in the Matrix spec in the future, so you can use less trusted clients. If you want to comment with your user, but don't trust the client, you can use any Matrix client with Cactus Comments by clicking "Use a Matrix client" :-)

a1371 6y ago

This is great! Any option to filter spam/hate speech automatically and not on the front-end?

Shared404 6y ago
This is an important question, I'm surprised to see it downvoted. That being said, I would imagine it would be done the same way as an automod type bot for any Matrix room. You'd probably have to implement it yourself though. Edit: That being said, I don't like the idea of automatic moderation. For small scale blogs, maybe just a manual approval of comments would be worthwhile.
ta8645 6y ago
I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious, but dealing with undesired content is handled via the usual Matrix methods[1]... since that is what underlies Cactus. You may have to self host though, i'm not sure if Cactus themselves give access to these features if you rely on them for hosting. [1] https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  Matrix is currently working on improved moderation and curation methods, right? I saw a blog post published to that effect, in response to the last administration's anti-encryption putsch.
- nanna 6y ago
  > I personally find "hate speech" nomenclature quite tedious I first encountered 'hate speech' as a wide eyed teenager in the 1990s on a gaming IRC room that I hung out in. Somehow my ethnic background came out, and it was bizarre: the entire room either turned against me with racist hate speech, adding that they knew where I lived based on my ip (didn't think this was possible, but then didn't know anyone to ask if it was) and would come beat me up or worse. Or they just went silent and wouldn't stand up for me. I asked the moderators to help and I don't think they ever replied; certainly they never did anything. It was terrifying, and it made me clock out of IRC and online gaming communities for good. So I wonder, to those who downvote someone asking about moderating (posts on your own blog!) or just consider hate speech as a term to be 'tedius' : have you ever experienced it yourself?

michaelsbradley 6y ago

When I followed the link in Firefox with the MetaMask extension installed and enabled, I was greeted with MetaMask's Ethereum Phishing Detection page: https://i.imgur.com/DSiut95.jpg https://i.imgur.com/DSiut95.jpg

michaelsbradley 6y ago
It seems to be a false positive in the phishing detector: https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/issues/4749 https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/issues/4749
detaro 6y ago
looking at the GH issues on that extension, false positives seems to be the name of the game there...
iudqnolq 6y ago
The detector is about twenty (inefficient) lines. Cauctus was flagged because it's similar "cactus" is similar to "auctus", which is on their known good list of domains they're checking for impersonations of. https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/blob/master/src/detector.js https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/blob/master/...

remram 6y ago

See also: Adding comments with Mastodon https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25570268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25570268

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

edent 6y ago

I'm currently using https://intensedebate.com/ https://intensedebate.com/ which, while abandonware, allows people to comment anonymously or using their Twitter & Facebook accounts. How hard would it be to add non-Matrix accounts to this service?

southerntofu 6y ago
Can't speak for the author about Cactus, but in my experience if you want to integrate with a lot of services for comments on your blog, you can use a widely-implemented protocol like webmention, along with a gateway like brid.gy for interfacing with centralized silos. Unfortunately Facebook shut down the brid.gy gateway a few years ago, but other silos still interoperate fine.
anoa_ 6y ago
Matrix is adding support for client-specific SSO identity providers: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/t3chguy/msc/multi-sso/proposals/2858-Multiple-SSO-Identity-Providers.md https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/t3chguy/msc/mu... This allows homeservers to specify trusted providers to prove identity with, which clients can then offer to their users to log in with. See this in action already with Element, the flagship Matrix client: https://app.element.io/#/login https://app.element.io/#/login You'll see that several social networks as well as Github/GitLab are offered to login with.

southerntofu 6y ago

Hello, i just tested it and it's really cool! Do you have any idea about ActivityPub / XMPP PubSub gateways for interoperability? From a remote look, it appears mxtoot is a bot not a proper AP gateway, and bifrost doesn't support PubSub XEP which is used for microblogging/commenting. Supporting these protocols directly would also be an option, but i don't know an ActivityPub server that supports guest accounts (but XMPP servers do). Too bad cactus doesn't work without JavaScript. Would it be possible in the future to support submitting a comment via simple HTML form for older/slower clients? A related annoying detail, '?' key is hijacked by JavaScript so it's impossible to type it in the comment box ;-) Thanks for this demo i'm excited for the future of federated comments

carlbordum 6y ago
Hi, I am one of the authors of Cactus Comments. Making Cactus Comments work without javascript would require a backend server. Right now, the frontend is actually just a special-purpose Matrix client that interacts directly with Matrix homeservers.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  Hello, thanks for taking the time to reply. Isn't the matrix.org homeserver already a backend HTTP server? I'm unfamiliar with the matrix protocol, but isn't there a way to POST to homeserver directly so that it can authenticate and confirm with the user they intend to post this message?

imrehg 6y ago

Sidenote: The site has a small gotcha, in the demo page, if I type a text with a "?", when the question mark is typed the top right search field just gets activated and can't really type that character into the comment at all. It feels annoying user experience, though the actual comment service is great, checking whether I can use that on my site/blog instead of the current stuff.

jaggs 6y ago

No WordPress plugin?

Gys 6y ago
Yes: https://cactus.chat/docs/getting-started/integrations/ https://cactus.chat/docs/getting-started/integrations/

nickdothutton 6y ago

The web desperately needs a good comment system which is easy to onboard to, easy for casual commenters, and non-pathological in terms of advertising/data-gathering/advertising. I really hope one comes along.

Arathorn 6y ago

This is really cool (and will finally solve the problem of matrix.org/blog not having any comments currently!)

aabbcc1241 6y ago

Appreciate this kind of decentralized, self-hosted project/platform/system

rectang 6y ago

Looking through the docs, I don't see any mention of spam prevention or moderation. What tools are available or planned to help beleaguered site owners deal with the inevitable onslaught?

Normille 6y ago

Metamask doesn't like it: >Ethereum Phishing Detection >This domain is currently on the MetaMask domain warning list. This means that based on information available to us, MetaMask believes this domain could currently compromise your security and, as an added safety feature, MetaMask has restricted access to the site. To override this, please read the rest of this warning for instructions on how to continue at your own risk.

Gys 6y ago
False positive? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372767