Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The comment referred to Google flagging other content as insecure; Google does that for HTTP content, not non-.app content.

The problem is either the “not necessarily” part is wrong (in regard to flagging HTTP) or the criticism is directed at a fantasy that isn't actually occurring (in regard to flagging things that aren't .app). Either way, the criticism is defective.




Nope:

> Google throws down a few hundred grand to get the .app domain,

> in concert with modifying their web browser

> to deliberately mark others' traffic as "Insecure"

> (it is not necessarily!),

> and reaps the fees now

This is what patrickg_zill's comment said, just with some newlines and emphasis to make it more understandable. The not necessarily does not refer to HTTP, it refers to non-.app domains. And there is no "criticism is directed at a fantasy", there is a cynical prediction which is completely possible in all respects. You---or I---may think that that'll never be the reality, but regardless, that's what the comment said, and the other commenter misunderstood. I don't get why I get downvotes and criticism for this.


It still reads to me like they meant non-HTTPS connections, as that is what they mark insecure in concert with buying the .app domain.

They -could- have meant .app, but we'd need the guys word to know for sure. It's not as straightforward of a comment as you think it is.


That is probably because you want to understand it so. I give up, they completely meant HTTP vs. HTTPS...




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: