this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
361 points (98.9% liked)

Selfhosted

62187 readers
455 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Has this impacted your self hosted instances of Immich? Are you hosting Immich via subdomain?

Related:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 55 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The URLs mentioned in their blog article all have a wrong certificate (different host name).

I am sure if they fix it Google’s system would reclassify the sites as safe.

[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I think that marking things as "safe" could have more complications than this depending on their definition but I think you're right that's probably all this issue is. This is almost the only sane comment here. Everyone else seems to be frothing at the mouth and I'm guessing its a decent mix of not understanding much of how these systems work (and blindly running tutorials for those that do self host) and blind ideology (big companies are bad / any practice that restricts my personal freedom in any way is bad)

[–] anyhow2503@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I don't blame people for thinking that something is off after reading the linked blog post. This wouldn't be the first time Google does something like this to OSS that poses some kind of potential threat to their business model (this is also mentioned in the post).

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

any practice that restricts my personal freedom in any way is bad

Yes? I don't want to live in a world where giant companies decide what I can and cannot see. And big companies are bad, they act as pseudo governments that aren't accountable to anyone, we used to break them apart before they started buying up politicians and political power.

[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

Agreed after the yes.

I'm not sure how what you said either: justifies the comments not fitting that label; justifies that "any practice that restricts my personal freedom in any way is bad" is a practical ideology; or even establishes much a link between what you've quoted and what you've said. And I think you need to be doing one of those to be making a counter argument

[–] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 3 points 10 months ago

Yeah, sure, 5 years after google flagged one of the sites i hosted, some firewalls (including isp-level blocks) mark the domain as unsafe. Google removed the block after more than a week but the stink continues until today.

It was also a development domain and we were forced to change it.