Google is dangerous.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
358 points (98.9% liked)
Selfhosted
52635 readers
1032 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:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Deadly to their margins by 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001%
Google, protecting you from privacy
Google protecting Google from FOSS.
They're right too, after using Immich I don't want to go back.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I have identified the problem.
... for which all solutions are pitifully incapable, relatively speaking.
I smell fear.
I knew it was too good to be true when they give away free pic storage for their pixel phones. I just didn't listen to my gut.
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.
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)
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.
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Immich users flag Google sites as dangerous
They've also started warning against android apps from outside repos. Basically they want to force people to use their ai-filled bullshit apps.
Google marks half the apps on my phone as dangerous. Google are evil xxxxxx's
Stop using google. Don't you know their motto? "Be evil"
Easier said than done, if your end users run Chrome. Because Chrome will automatically block your site if you’re on double secret probation.
The phishing flag usually happens because you have the Username, Password, Log In, and SSO button all on the same screen. Google wants you to have the Username field, the Log In button, and any SSO stuff on one page. Then if you input a username and go to start a password login, Google expects the SSO to disappear and be replaced by the vanilla Log In button. If you simply have all of the fields and buttons on one page, Google flags it as a phishing attempt. Like I guess they expect you to try and steal users’ Google passwords if you have a password field on the same page as a “Sign in with Google” button.
Firefox ingests Google SafeBrowsing lists.
If you are falsely flagged as phishing (like I was), then you are fucked regardless of what you use (except you use curl).
I couldnt even bypass the safebrowse warning on my Android phone in Firefox.
OP is impacted by Google SafeBrowsing which various websites use.
Same when you try to deviate from the approved path of email providers or, dog forbid, even self-host email.
This is why I always switch off that "block potentially dangerous sites" setting in my browser - it means Google's blacklists. This is how Google influences the web beyond its own products.
edit: it's much more complex than simple blocklists with email
load more comments
(5 replies)
Why are the immich teams internal deployments available to anyone on the open web? If you go to one of their links, like they provide in the article, they have an invalid SSL certificate, which google rightly flags as being a security risk, warns you about it, and stops you from going there without manual intervention. This is standard behaviour and no-one should want google to stop doing this.
I was going to install linux on an old NUC to run immich some time soon, but think I might have to have a look to see if it has been audited by some legit security companies first. How do they not see this issue of their own doing?
It is for pull requests. A user makes a change to the documentation, they want to be able to see the changes on a web page.
If you don't have them on the open web, developers and pull request authors can't see the previews.
The issue they had was being marked as phishing, not the SSL certificate warning page.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
this is why you disable google "safe browsing" in librewolf and use badblock instead
load more comments
(3 replies)
Fuck you google. I can't see youtube videos with my browser because google wants me to sign in. Tells me it is protecting the community.
BULLSHIT.
Because google doesnt make me sign in to view or edit someone elses google docs they are sharing. Which one is more important google? Assholes.
load more comments
(15 replies)
jellyfin had a similar issue too for a long time for servers exposed to the internet. google would always reblock the domains soon after unblocking them. I think they solved it in the latest update. Basically it's that google's scraping bots think that all jellyfin servers are a scam that imitate a "real" website.
But the malvertisements on Google's front page are ok, I guess
load more comments
(3 replies)
I got a 'dangerous site' warning and then prompts for crap on my Vaultwarden instance (didn't see it on Immich but this was a while ago). I think I had to prove I owned the domain with some DNS TXT records then let them "recheck" the domain. It seems to have worked.
Similar issues were reported with aves libre early this week, maybe it's related?
From the OP:
Google Safe Browsing looks to be have been built without consideration for open-source or self-hosted software. Many popular projects have run into similar issues, such as:
-
Jellyfin
-
YunoHost
-
n8n
-
NextCloud
I'm sure it's all accidental and coincidental that open source project that rival Google just weirdly got flagged as being dangerous. Google also doesn't know how this happened, it just did! Magic!
load more comments
(2 replies)
Was also flagged recently.
In my case it was the root domain which is
- Geofiltered to only my own Country in Cloudflare
- Geofiltered to only my country in my firewall
- Protected by Authelia (except the root domain which says 404 when accessing)
So....IDK what they want from me :p My domain doesnt serve public websites (like a blog) destined for public consumption...
Is it available for the public to get to? Yes, so that’s why.
Google flags F-Droid updates...
Why would people have Google security going on if they have set up F-Droid as their appstore? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose?
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›