Five Myths About the Large Hadron Collider
The Daily Flash: Eco, Space, Science (5/2)

Google Bans the Internet

Google_bot_logo The internet was initially intended as a distributed network able to continue functioning even when partially destroyed.  It's an interesting idea that engineers once built systems with the condition "Will this still work if half my country is nuked?", and luckily one that no longer applies - because if anyone ever targets the Googleplex in Mountain View the whole thing could come crashing down.

Google demonstrated their importance last Saturday by blocking the entire internet, marking every single page with warnings that they was bad for the user.  While that's probably true, overall, it didn't help users whose computers were constantly redirected to web security firm  It didn't help either, actually, since they were slightly unprepared for connections from the entire world and their servers went down due to the massive Google-directed denial of service attack.

The whole thing was over inside an hour, with the problem traced to a single slash typo in a malware site list.  The blocked-site file included a "/", and if you look at that little browser bar above this article you'll see that every single site in the world has one of those.

Now, we're not suggesting that this is some kind of warning shot from an ultrapowerful cyber-corp that's been reading Neuromancer and thinking "Those online megacorporations who can bend the world to their will are an awesome idea!"  We are, however, saying that literally with a single keystroke Google just broke both the internet AND an anti-breaking-the-internet site.

Posted by Luke McKinney.

Google bans it all


Google does not equal the internet. Not by a long shot. Hell the world wide web doesn't even equal the internet.

Worst title for an article and most poorly written article I've ever read here.

Wow. Everyone read about this last week, and you have grossly over exaggerated the situation.

Is this site maintained by children in middle school?

Go elsewhere if you're not happy with the articles here.

Crap, this article sux, a lot.


Ive gotta go elsewhere, and fuck you whoever stumbled this shit.

Hate to be redundant, but this article does suck--ass.

Not only is this story days and days old (may as well be weeks in blog time), but you angled it completely inaccurately to try to make it sound more apocalyptic, as if Google really could, with one wrong "slash," shut down the entire Internet.

Plain and simple, just because millions of users start their browsing experience with a Google search, doesn't mean that the whole concept of going straight to a website has been obliterated. In fact, the only thing a problem such as this does is force people who legitimately need to search for something go to Yahoo!.

Now, if every web browser on the market officially "checked" with Google before loading a site from a direct URL, then a terminator-like analogy such as yours might hold water. Until then, you're dumb.

I agree with the author of this article. The scenario described is not far fetched. Google's founder is a friend, advisor, and a large contributor to Obama's 2008 election campaign. A Google employee publicly confessed that the company is manipulating the data they compile to influence internet search responses. They can even delete or edit information. People -- pay attention. BTW, I ignore any and all name calling. I appreciate dialogue towards finding solutions.

It is crucial that we address what can be done about the critical problem outlined by the site author? I want to know the answer.

Such a storm in a tea cup. I have no idea what all the fuss is about.

Such a storm in a tea cup. I have no idea what all the fuss is about.

well.. the google-bot image is cool tho..

"Worst title for an article and most poorly written article I've ever read here."

Actually, I don't even know why I come here still. It's probably the pretty pictures. I never trust anything I read here without doing further investigation and the titles are almost always misleading. so sloppy

Actually I really like this article. It was a little twisted and had a fresh perspective on what I had already heard. Good work.

The 'surprising fact' appears to me all these comments about the Internet and the Ethernet (packet switched corcuits) that was in fact invented by one of Your most reputable agency in the late 70'.

DARPA invented Internet and the related Ethernet and packet transmission that soon after became the IP protocol.

Nowadays Darpa has been renamed 'ARPA' but they do the same : inventing new ways for communication and data trasfer systems....among other things.

The Project at ARPA was decided becouse the struggling of the old cicuit switching methods (still applied on actual telephony ) .... was isufficient to connect in proper manner large campus military networks (LAN) and methods to stay away from the old days TDM exchanges of ATT and other telephone providers of those order to span the LANs to interconnect with packets oriented protocols to a vsat number of miltary bases dispersed throughout the world.

I refrain from describimg to you the advantages of LAN and WAN based on Cisco routers and similar stuff.

'Google is profoundly correct'...they have proven and NOT only said that the Internet is nowadays a poor network in terms of performance and connectivity...a true 70' based communication-data exchage protocol.

If you ask the 'magics of internet' to operate in QoS based environment You suddenly discover how this magic network is POOR: Not even the Voice over IP can be assured and implemented if you do not get the proper circuit.....and Generally you do not get such circuits oriented connections.

The poor routers of Cisco try to do Miracles...but then the network servers become the Bottleneck....and the so called 'unicast' is jus NOT doable in real time as NOT truly embedded-envisaged in the DARPA protocol.

Internet was in fact invented by DARPA to exchange messages and DATA that means Email and other textual messages or visual infos based on file transfer protocols....NOT for interactive sessions.

Google wants to be interactive NOWADAYS as You might have understood that Your atispamming devices , firewalls and and other software gadgets...are a Brain damage....and You loose (the internet does) a lot of data and time that in turn do NOT support real time trasactions.

The internet protocol within the ISO-OSI model ??
Old days stuff.........Junk.

This is the message from Google...OLD days stuff that constitute an impedement for doing real time transactions...and they are aiming at this.

Now You state that the article is poorly written with various forms of languages in the comments.....

I do NOT know...You seem all Genious...that means You must be so clever that these few words (mine) will be commented as 'true Junk' or 'the like with more colorful expressions of the kind of above(SLANGS).

The article is well is synthetic ...that means 'Not wordish'....and 'reports facts and not ideas..'

I truly disagree with ALL of You Guys that are anything but NOT expert in what You are talking about.

Therefore quite few of Your comments appear 'You do Not give any sign of having understood' what there is behynd the little game of Google.

Regards to ALL the ingnorant.

Again, one of those cleverly-written crappy-content articles.

This is like the 3rd article on this website I personally read against Google. While I do not have any information regarding the MORALS of the people in google, I know this, the author is pretty paranoid and feeding it to all susceptible of being so.

"Okay. So, ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, huh? " - Zaphod

It reveals just how little you actually know about the internet if all it takes to break it is 2 broken websites. You do realize that there was a time before Google, before search engines, before malicious-site filters, and we got by just fine. I'm sure if Google got nuked, there'd be a bunch of lost grandparents out there, but those of us who actually understand how the internet works (OP excluded), it'd barely be an inconvenience.

This is wrong on so many levels. It shows a lack of understanding of just what the Internet is (or worse errors, I fear). Google did not "ban the Internet" - it can't (yet), and that's an overblown, sensationalistic title.

First, this thing we call "The Internet" was not designed to "continue functioning even when partially destroyed"* - simply because nobody really _designed_ the thing. It grew, initially, in a highly organic fashion, and it wasn't until the tech world realized that the internet was going to be far more important than anybody imagined that lots of really smart people started pushing for more and better web and networking standards (causing the IETF and IEEE to really come into their own).

Second, saying Google "blocked" the internet with their unintended error shows either a misunderstanding of the internet or a desire to be deliberately disingenuous. Perhaps to farm site clicks with sensationalistic titles. Considering that saying "Google blocked the Internet" is staggeringly moronic, I assume the second.

The internet worked fine. Normal people realized that nothing was being blocked - we just used a different search engine for an hour or so.

*(I'll grant that is true of the Domain Name System, but not the whole Internet)

"warnings that they was bad for the user"

Couldn't bring myself to keep reading after that.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)