Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Firefox 3.5 and Google Block MassResistance.org
Google ^ | 07-28-09 | FreepShop1

Posted on 07/28/2009 6:56:09 PM PDT by FreepShop1

The new update to Firefox, 3.5 is blocking access to the critical anti-homosexual activist site MassResistance.org...

UPDATE: Google is now also blocking access, warning "Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this website may harm your computer."

MassResistance folks told me that Google started doing this leading up to a recent vote on a Transgender Bill in Mass., in an obvious attempt to shut down dissent. There were not aware that the new Firefox is also censoring them.

This is an illegal violation of the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment and Digital Millenium Act. We need to get to our Representatives on this ASAP.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activism; gayagenda; homsexual
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

1 posted on 07/28/2009 6:56:09 PM PDT by FreepShop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1

Doesn’t block me with FF 3.5.1


2 posted on 07/28/2009 6:57:50 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Doesn’t block me with FF 3.5.1

Your security preferences may be different from defaults.

3 posted on 07/28/2009 6:58:43 PM PDT by FreepShop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1

See the little words in the bottom right hand corner that say “ignore this warning”?


4 posted on 07/28/2009 6:59:34 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

LOL Using an old IE v 6 and it’s OK.

BING doesn’t “block” it.


5 posted on 07/28/2009 6:59:36 PM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1

It all depends on what your settings are. If you have high security filtertering, it will be blocked because of keywords used in articles (such as the word “tranny” in the article you linked to above.) It isn’t personal, it is just you use words in your articles normally associated with porn sites and such.


6 posted on 07/28/2009 7:00:27 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1

i have 3.5.1 and i also don’t see this problem


7 posted on 07/28/2009 7:00:37 PM PDT by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1

No blockage here.


8 posted on 07/28/2009 7:00:44 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1
"Your security preferences may be different from defaults."

Nope. I haven't touched them. "block reported websites" is definitely checked. FWIW.

9 posted on 07/28/2009 7:00:53 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1
Came up without any problem for me (Firefox). It looks like they have cleared the site.

I'm wondering if homosexual activists just falsely reported the site as an attack site and Google and Firefox took the reports at face value.

10 posted on 07/28/2009 7:01:24 PM PDT by behzinlea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

>it will be blocked because of keywords used in articles (such as the word “tranny” in the article you linked to above.)

What do people have against transmissions?


11 posted on 07/28/2009 7:02:02 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1
Blocks on my test box with all default settings.

/johnny

12 posted on 07/28/2009 7:02:20 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (God Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1

Diagnostic page for www.massresistance.org

What is the current listing status for www.massresistance.org?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 2 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 304 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-07-28, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-07-28.

Malicious software includes 1 scripting exploit(s).

Malicious software is hosted on 4 domain(s), including carmelazfunz.com/, web-analize.org/, cqzinomonster.com/.

3 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including analitic-manager.net/, web-analize.net/, web-analize.org/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS32392 (OPENTRANSFER).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

Over the past 90 days, www.massresistance.org did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?

No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

How did this happen?

In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.


13 posted on 07/28/2009 7:02:23 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1
Ran a quick check. Google tried to block it, and claimed it was an attack site. Firefox and Safari both went through with no glitches.
14 posted on 07/28/2009 7:02:50 PM PDT by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1
This is an illegal violation of the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment and Digital Millenium Act.

Unless the government is behind it, it is not a Constitutional violation.

15 posted on 07/28/2009 7:03:56 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1

One word - Opera


16 posted on 07/28/2009 7:04:11 PM PDT by asformeandformyhouse (I've been listening to a lot of rap music lately. Mostly at red lights and stop signs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1

The massresistance site (like any other Web site) has to try to protect itself from hackers.

Here’s Google’s report on what’s happening:

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 304 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-07-28, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-07-28.
Malicious software includes 1 scripting exploit(s).

Malicious software is hosted on 4 domain(s), including carmelazfunz.com/, web-analize.org/, cqzinomonster.com/.

3 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including analitic-manager.net/, web-analize.net/, web-analize.org/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS32392 (OPENTRANSFER).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

Over the past 90 days, www.massresistance.org did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?

No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

How did this happen?

In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.

Next steps:

Return to the previous page.
If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google’s Webmaster Help Center.


17 posted on 07/28/2009 7:05:11 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (Obama promised a gold mine, but he will give us the shaft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1
This is what I got when I searched "MassResistance"

"This site may harm your computer.
Google blocks MassResistance blog! Posts warning notice that our factual transgender rights reports (with photos) are "objectionable"! ..."

18 posted on 07/28/2009 7:07:05 PM PDT by stevio (Crunchy Con - God, guns, guts, and organically grown crunchy nuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
If you have high security filtertering, it will be blocked because of keywords used in articles (such as the word “tranny” in the article you linked to above.) It isn’t personal, it is just you use words in your articles normally associated with porn sites and such.

Incorrect.

According to Google's Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for www.massresistance.org, they are blocking it because some sites linked from it are attempting to purvey malware. In other words, Mass Resistance probably needs to look into for whom they are serving ads.

Google's as efficient as any good search engine at finding p0rn.

19 posted on 07/28/2009 7:07:56 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1
MassResistance folks told me that Google started doing this leading up to a recent vote on a Transgender Bill in Mass., in an obvious attempt to shut down dissent. There were not aware that the new Firefox is also censoring them.

You could at least understand the technology being implemented before crying wolf. "Firefox" itself is not blocking a damn thing: Firefox's anti-phishing filter references a Google-maintained database to discern if the URL the user is attempting to connect to is suspected of being a malware vector. Sometimes the Google list gets it wrong: I've occasionally been warned that an innocent, non-political site could potentially be a malware-distributing or falsified webpage. Usually a site lands on Google's list because a random advertisement on the site contains malicious code, or attempts to clickjack your browser.

Mozilla is 100% blameless.
20 posted on 07/28/2009 7:12:30 PM PDT by Terpfen (FR is being Alinskied. Remember, you only take flak when you're over the target.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson