3 ms·

But if you visit these they give themselves a free pass. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.c

But if you visit these they give themselves a free pass. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/ https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/ Doesn't seem fair does it? Is this about "leaving your chosen office suite" or "leaving Google". Here's an interesting one. It gets allowed even though the HTTP cert has lapsed. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.keyhole.com/ https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.keyhole.com/

salil999 3y ago
> Doesn't seem fair does it? Is this about "leaving your chosen office suite" or "leaving Google". How is it unfair if they allow their own websites which they maintain and develop to have no malware? > Here's an interesting one. It gets allowed even though the HTTP cert has lapsed. I doubt any human is going through and vetting every website. It's not a perfect system - I'm sure there will be websites through the cracks.
- afandian 3y ago
  This article is about exported documents, i.e. the point at which you say "I am leaving the ecosystem of my chosen tool". The wording of the interstitial page says "If you do not want to visit that page..." i.e. it's about whether you expected to visit one website or another. Surely google.com is as 'surprising' to the user as any other page. BTW keyhole.com is an old Google-owned domain. From https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_Google_domains https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_Google_domains EDIT: From my own experiment exporting a docuemnt it renders links as https://www.google.com/url?q=https://example.com&sa=D&source=editors&ust=XXXXX194612XXXXX&usg=XXXXXw27HWTQHA8yFIRknCTXXXXX https://www.google.com/url?q=https://example.com&sa=D&source... I changed some param values, I don't know what they do. But with the original values it remembered my preference. So it seems like they're tracking and storing clicks.
  - TobyTheDog123 3y ago
    >Surely google.com is as 'surprising' to the user as any other page. The metric isn't how surprising it is, but how potentially malicious it is. The entire point of the redirect is so the user can make a conscious decision not to visit a potentially-malicious page. Google.com and Youtube.com, operated by the same people who made the docs tool, make the entirely-fair assumption that neither contain malware. That being said, I also think it's the wrong argument to make. It makes very little sense that an exported document needs these interstitials. It would make more sense if it applied them to hosted Google Docs, but not things that are self-hosted by an end-user.
    - josefx 3y ago
      > Google.com and Youtube.com, operated by the same people who made the docs tool, make the entirely-fair assumption that neither contain malware. The same people who got caught war driving with Streetview if you want to be that generous.
- aftbit 3y ago
  It would be one thing if they had an allowlist or denylist of sites that were not just their org. It's another thing entirely when they allow all Google sites through but not their competitors. I can imagine there being abuse of monopoly powers claims to be made here. Links to YouTube videos in a Google spreadsheet will take half as many clicks as links to Vimeo videos, which will result in fewer lost conversions.
Rastonbury 3y ago
If I present links on my site and show phishing warnings on click, why would I warn users about sites I own or know to not be fakes. It just ruins their experience
- cma 3y ago
  Amazon.com is not known to not to be fake?
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    It is outside their trust domain. Google can verify that Google upholds strong security practices. Google cannot verify that Amazon does. For all Google knows, Amazon might have one engineer who updates their SSL cert who forgets next year.
- afandian 3y ago
  It's not your site, it's my document on my hard drive.

salil999 3y ago

> Doesn't seem fair does it? Is this about "leaving your chosen office suite" or "leaving Google". How is it unfair if they allow their own websites which they maintain and develop to have no malware? > Here's an interesting one. It gets allowed even though the HTTP cert has lapsed. I doubt any human is going through and vetting every website. It's not a perfect system - I'm sure there will be websites through the cracks.

afandian 3y ago
This article is about exported documents, i.e. the point at which you say "I am leaving the ecosystem of my chosen tool". The wording of the interstitial page says "If you do not want to visit that page..." i.e. it's about whether you expected to visit one website or another. Surely google.com is as 'surprising' to the user as any other page. BTW keyhole.com is an old Google-owned domain. From https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_Google_domains https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_Google_domains EDIT: From my own experiment exporting a docuemnt it renders links as https://www.google.com/url?q=https://example.com&sa=D&source=editors&ust=XXXXX194612XXXXX&usg=XXXXXw27HWTQHA8yFIRknCTXXXXX https://www.google.com/url?q=https://example.com&sa=D&source... I changed some param values, I don't know what they do. But with the original values it remembered my preference. So it seems like they're tracking and storing clicks.
- TobyTheDog123 3y ago
  >Surely google.com is as 'surprising' to the user as any other page. The metric isn't how surprising it is, but how potentially malicious it is. The entire point of the redirect is so the user can make a conscious decision not to visit a potentially-malicious page. Google.com and Youtube.com, operated by the same people who made the docs tool, make the entirely-fair assumption that neither contain malware. That being said, I also think it's the wrong argument to make. It makes very little sense that an exported document needs these interstitials. It would make more sense if it applied them to hosted Google Docs, but not things that are self-hosted by an end-user.
  - josefx 3y ago
    > Google.com and Youtube.com, operated by the same people who made the docs tool, make the entirely-fair assumption that neither contain malware. The same people who got caught war driving with Streetview if you want to be that generous.
aftbit 3y ago
It would be one thing if they had an allowlist or denylist of sites that were not just their org. It's another thing entirely when they allow all Google sites through but not their competitors. I can imagine there being abuse of monopoly powers claims to be made here. Links to YouTube videos in a Google spreadsheet will take half as many clicks as links to Vimeo videos, which will result in fewer lost conversions.

Rastonbury 3y ago

If I present links on my site and show phishing warnings on click, why would I warn users about sites I own or know to not be fakes. It just ruins their experience

cma 3y ago
Amazon.com is not known to not to be fake?
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  It is outside their trust domain. Google can verify that Google upholds strong security practices. Google cannot verify that Amazon does. For all Google knows, Amazon might have one engineer who updates their SSL cert who forgets next year.
afandian 3y ago
It's not your site, it's my document on my hard drive.