Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> you managed to get it under control.

He did, though. He cleaned up his website and deleted all the spam comments. How do you expect him to prevent other websites from linking to his?



sort by: page size:

> I just found that we shared a link pointing to a governmental domain. I cleaned every log today and retrieved the link then sent it back. The domain has been contacted again. So yes it is related to link preview.

> Thanks Stefan

From a 3 days old account.


> This is just streaming spam and any site that accepts user-generated content is susceptible to it.

Not if the site polices user-generated content.


> According to the guy who ran the site.

Do you see the problem?


> Why are you using quotes around the word “canceled” for the Daily Stormer.

I was just trying to emphasize that I was using the term in the more loose colloquial sense and not trying to exactly describe the particular actions of the vendors.

> Do you think the issues people had with it were somehow contrived, false, or overblown?

Wow, seriously I am not sure how you could have managed to get this from my comment. Please do not put words into my mouth.

> Why would you even bring that site up tbh?

It is a broadly known example of a website that was dropped by pretty much all major online services (including even CloudFlare). What happened to Daily Stormer generated some interesting discussion around online service provides denying services (see the CloudFlare blogpost on why it terminated Daily Stormer: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/).


> ... and you should be free to not visit his page.

You mean restrict myself to the remaining two websites that don't do this?

Also, it's not like the website obesity crisis is a new concept: http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm


> site that may or may not have the content originally linked two weeks later.

I have a handful of web personal projects which I built and maintain just for fun (no ads on them), pretty light on the incoming traffic, to put it nicely, but a couple of days ago one of them received a spike in traffic originating from Facebook. But looking at the referral got me into a black hole, i.e. the infamous l.php FB page which doesn’t tell me anything about which page linked to my website, in other words totally opposed to the original idea behind the www.

Like I said, I maintain those projects just for fun and I was really looking forward to having a conversation about said project that got linked to with whomever decided to follow said link, but because you can’t peak at all behind FB’s wall that meant that that idea was dead from the very start.


> The mature and responsible thing to do would have been to add a content security policy to the page

OP knows that


> A number of them even have the gall to post links advertising them in the comments of my own tools.

That and the search engine mayhem are abusive behaviour, even if not abuse of the license.

It's being a dick, deliberately.


> Troll wouldn’t even let me remove the post. Eventually they just took the loss after months (a year?) and let me kill the site.

What do you mean, "let you"? They hadn't somehow magically gained technical and administrative access to your blog, had they?


> Please avoid adding drive-by comments such as "hello from Hacker News" to this task as they are not helpful. Thank you.

Ironic. Dang could save himself from spam, but not others.


> If your boss can't sell which things are part of their output and which are external, they're not doing a very good job.

It's been a problem in the past:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060427011138/http://www.centos...

> Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:52:58 +0000 (Wed, 18:52 CST)

> Jerry A. Taylor submitted the following Information:

> Email xxxxxxx

> Company City of Tuttle

> Location Oklahoma

> Comments

> Who gave you permission to invade my website and block me and anyone else from accessing it???

> Please remove your software immediately before I report it to government officials!!

> I am the City Manager of Tuttle, Oklahoma.

And the response:

> From: Johnny Hughes

> To: Jerry A. Taylor

> Subject: Re: www.centos.org - Contact Us Form

> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:59:18 -0600

> I feel sorry for your city.

> CentOS is an operating system. It is probably installed on the computer

> that runs your website.

> We hope you are happy with it, since we produced it for free and you are

> able to use it without paying us ... and are even threatening to have us

> arrested for providing to you free of charge.

> Please contact someone who does IT for you and show them the page so

> that they can configure your apache webserver correctly.

> Thanks,

> Johnny Hughes,

> CentOS 4 Lead Developer

Figured out what happened yet, Encyclopedia Brown?

Yep: The city of Tuttle, OK, had a misconfigured/unconfigured site which was showing the CentOS default page. The City Manager of that August Berg thought "We've been hacked! We've been hacked by hackers with a bland corporate logo who left contact information! I MUST THREATEN THEM USING EMAIL!"

Click the link. It gets stupider.

My point is, you have to take the... uh... "violently ignorant" into account whenever you design things which can be public-facing.


> and I have decided to remove those articles from my website.

Updating them with a link to this for context would have been the better move.


> even bury the whole issue from getting any traction.

Wasn't your site explicitly whitelisted?


> I apologise that he used your site as an example. Nice work, BTW.

No probs. I know people here get passionate about the health of the WWW. And thanks :-)


> At the time I didn't think much of it, but then 2 or 3 days later they first deleted that ad, then the whole board and when I visited today I found their entire website has been completely reworked. Have you seen this and do you know if it was saved anywhere?

https://web.archive.org/web/20200615000000*/http://www.whiov...


> That causes a lot more harm than good. [...] and you do so for barely no practical advantage.

That's highly subjective.

As far as fucking up a site goes, I really don't care. It's my account after all. (Or is it?)

> just because you didn't care to read the Universal small print of the interwebs

What?


> blocked pastebin.com because of a bunch of pastes

Say what now?!


"he's pressured Stephen & his webmaster to immediately fix this hole or risk a much worse attack on his site."

Surely that's a good thing? I agree that Stephen would/will probably be offended (assuming he wasn't notified), but he'll certainly take security more seriously now.


> This post is kind of crazy, aggrandizing bad behavior and misuse of other's resources against their will.

How so? I send a web request, they send me the content in a response. If they aren't happy with that then they should refuse my request.

next

Legal | privacy