4 ms·
Regarding "Web sites are deemed unsafe, even if Facebook monitors them", wouldn't it be worse if Facebook deemed websites that it monitored 'safe'? Then Facebo
by mnutt 15y ago
Regarding "Web sites are deemed unsafe, even if Facebook monitors them", wouldn't it be worse if Facebook deemed websites that it monitored 'safe'? Then Facebook would be saying: "use Facebook services on your site, or we'll scare all of your users with an interstitial message"
- notahacker 15y agoThis is true. I presume a preferred option would be dumping the warnings altogether, but this would be a big boon for phishers. What I don't like about the article is the suggestion that the best way of combating Facebook's excessively paranoid and usually unwarranted warnings about offsite content is to show excessively paranoid warnings to people trying to get into Facebook. Particularly when one of the principal gateways to Facebook is the browsers and websites operated by Google - not exactly a disinterested third party.
- ajross 15y agoWhy would it be a boon to phishers? Existing solutions for phishing/malware blacklisting are mature and quite well supported. There's lost of competition in the market, and they work quite well overall. It's not like Facebook couldn't just buy one of these for decent coverage. The point is that putting up what amounts to a false negative malware warning on basically every "minor" link on facebook (I know it's not really a false negative, but that's how it's perceived) is just terrible overkill for the problem, and a terrible experience for the users. That it survives at all leads one to wonder seriously about facebook's intentions.