Jump to content

Mediafire Actively Censors anonym.to Links


Ambrocious

Recommended Posts

UPDATE: ISSUES RESOLVED

In a slightly startling find, Google Chrome has been found to be engaged in active censorship in web linking to MediaFire while using the anonymous redirecting service from anonym.to. Although it does not appear to be doing the same sort of censorship to Hotfile or ShareSend (other file hosting website have not yet been tested), it definately appears to be giving a FALSIFIED message to Chrome users claiming that the file has been blocked due to violation, even though if you simply remove the anonym.to linking method, it travels straight into your desired download.

Posted Image

Even files that are NOT in ANY way associated with piracy or any other infringing intellectual property are not allowed to be accessed when using the anonym.to linking method. As a test to prove the validity of this, open up Google Chrome and try to access the following web link using Chrome first, and then try it in Mozilla Firefox:

It appears that Google Chrome has made a conscious effort to purposely filter out linking to Mediafire through the anonym.to redirecting method. Whether Mediafire took part in this filtration is currently unknown.

Update: it's not Google Chrome responsible for this blocking, but Mediafire itself. Mediafire is not allowing visitors who try to download a file through an anonym.to link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So Mediafire goes through the trouble of checking the user agent AND sending a different webpage specifically for Chrome? :wtf:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure. I stumbled across this today in fact, I also tried to do this with Internet Explorer and it went along just fine. But, if you upload a file to Mediafire and you choose to use the http://anonym.to/? anonymous linking method while using Chrome, NO MATTER WHAT FILE it is, if it's on Mediafire, Google Chrome will tell you that the file has been removed due to violation, even though it is a blatant lie. I know this is NOT an accident because it does not treat OTHER online web hosting sites the same way when using the anonym.to linking system, so far that I have seen anyway. I believe that this is an active piracy deterrent that Google has done, and in my own personal opinion, I think Mediafire consented...but this is strictly my opinion on the matter regarding Mediafire's involvement. I'm not sure if Mediafire is involved in this and so I can't accuse them but I am almost certain that Google knows full well.

Oh and for anyone who thinks that I am just "paranoid", shortly after I created this article, Google was reading or should I say "scanning" this article. Google's name CAN NOT be clicked on which indicates that it is NOT an ordinary user which also indicates that it has back doors built into these forums by default as a defense mechanism. Google is built as a real time internet scanning engine, it is also programmed to scan for specific names or titles because of the other security protocols that the NSA and FBI and CIA use inside of Google's web bots, it's own name being a key phrase I assume, and it's name is probably a high priority item (I assume). The results that Google finds is gathered by Google's AI and sent to a private inspection folder where security analysts evaluate each incident where Google's AI detected something of importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Mediafire doesn't know and it's intentional Mal-rendering of Mediafire pages by Chrome?

Oh and as for the Google spiders, they're on the site a few times each day, so no biggie, I guess :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping Mediafire doesn't know this but if they do, it means that Mediafire is already compromised. I know that Mediafire has switched their front page to more of a family friendly tune (it's a good PR stunt) because of recent pressure on them from the MPAA but that tid bit of info is unrelated.

I highly doubt that Google is accidentally sending out a falsified notice because they are USING Mediafire's fonts and image rendering information to INFORM THE USERS about the supposed file violation. This leads me to believe that either Mediafire KNOWS FULLY or that Google has hijacked Mediafires native image file rendering (page layout and design look and feel) and is presenting the idea that the file is in violation. What is more believable, that Google hijacked Mediafire's EXACT page layout and design and feel in order to present this message, or that Google is using Mediafire's native notice of a file which has been in violation?

I conclude in a strong hunch that Mediafire KNOWS FULL WELL and has allowed Google to do this using Mediafire's own native notice system. If Mediafire had been tricked into programming this into their system, maybe their IT department needs and upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google has hijacked Mediafires native image file rendering (page layout and design look and feel) and is presenting the idea that the file is in violation. What is more believable, that Google hijacked Mediafire's EXACT page layout and design and feel in order to present this message, or that Google is using Mediafire's native notice of a file which has been in violation?

Most plausible scenario is prolly a redirection to the error page whenever Chrome renders a MF link, methinks :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google has hijacked Mediafires native image file rendering (page layout and design look and feel) and is presenting the idea that the file is in violation. What is more believable, that Google hijacked Mediafire's EXACT page layout and design and feel in order to present this message, or that Google is using Mediafire's native notice of a file which has been in violation?

Most plausible scenario is prolly a redirection to the error page whenever Chrome renders a MF link, methinks :)

NO, try using other anonymous weblinks, it doesn't do it. Also, when you go right into any Mediafire page WITHOUT any sort of anonymous link, it works fine. Chrome should not dictate a file destination as being "in violation" if it is having a simple error. This is no simple error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Gabben, please check EVERY medifire link that you care to check. Assure that they work normally in Google Chrome. NOW, add http://anonym.to/? in front of those same links. Do you get the error?

Now do the same steps for Firefox. Now do the same steps in Internet Explorer. What are your results? Was I wrong? Am I still paranoid or have a discovered something interesting?

It is not a bad thing to discover and report on the odd and unusual, no matter what you have been taught to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty bizarre, actually. Somebody's ought to have a logical explanation for this :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In FFox 11.0 i clicked the link in your 1st post, and downloaded the file without any problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seemed to have issues in general. I uploaded code for college, and could not download it as it said removed for violation, if I got it from history.

Haven't tried anonym.to, but there may be issues involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Cody - You can't possibly be the guy from mdl. Are you? Or are you just an imposter? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I won't say anything more about it. However, I can confirm the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I can confirm the situation.

How exactly? I am a Chrome user and I don't have such a problem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

The same problem it's also present in Safari-Lion and Chrome-Lion.

It is not present in Firefox-Lion.

It is extrange that with some tweaking, the links, including the http://anonym.to/? prefix, works in both trouble browsers.

As an example

Safari (Mac)

Have the download button to show in the toolbar (right upper corner)

Make the link visible in the tab opened

Click in the Download button to "Show Download" drop down list. Leave it like that.

Put the pointer on top of the link, then click on it without releasing and drag and drop into the Download List

Posted Image

The download menu will close when you drop the link.

Then reopen the Download List hitting the button.

You will see the link. Click twice on it. You will receive the typical warning. Hit "Open"

Then Voilà

Posted Image

The file downloads without a problem. Even showing the previous anonym page.

Explanation: Unknown, so far

There is also a work around for Chrome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Chrome:

Right click on the link to download (the one with the anonym.to prefix)

Select: "Save link as.."

Leave the default name and location if you want

Hit save.

A download bar will show up in the bottom of Chrome with the downloaded link as Download.html

Click once on the icon of the "download.html" file shown in that bar and without releasing drag and drop into any place of the same page you extracted from, and that should be visible above the bar.

Voilà.

The file downloads, even showing the anonym.to redirecting black page!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Running the 20 dev version of Chrome, and can confirm the problem. The file loads normally without anonym.to.

It's not the point of being able to fix this error and get to your fie, but rather the principle of a right to accessing internet information. Bah. Die Googe, die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Running the 20 dev version of Chrome, and can confirm the problem. The file loads normally without anonym.to.

It's not the point of being able to fix this error and get to your fie, but rather the principle of a right to accessing internet information. Bah. Die Googe, die.

Yeah see, you understand what I mean. It's like it's being blocked BECAUSE it's using the anonym.to link method, not because the file is not really there. It's like anyone who uses that method is being punished (presented with the false violation notice) for trying to use a slight bit more method of safety or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Running the 20 dev version of Chrome, and can confirm the problem. The file loads normally without anonym.to.

It's not the point of being able to fix this error and get to your fie, but rather the principle of a right to accessing internet information. Bah. Die Googe, die.

That explains why some people have this issue and some don't. You are using the Dev version!

All the people not using the Dev version have no problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my version under "STABLE" from nsane's download page: 18.0.1025.142

I am not using the Dev version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, which brings me back to my original question.

I am using the same stable version

This is my version under "STABLE" from nsane's download page: 18.0.1025.142

And this is what I get when pressing the anonym.to:

Posted Image

And then with no problem I get:

Posted Image

Which is why I don't understand why it doesn't work for you. :s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows. Maybe its googles Analytics that determined that we are too risky to be allowed to download files from mediafire. It's a leech system that tracks our every move. It's happened to me before, I've realised just now, with mediafire, but I payed no attention to it, thinking that the files were simply deleted.

Now I'm so pissed, that I decided to re-check Mozilla firefox. I gave up on it because it grinded my system to a hault, back in the 3.1 days.

This time, however, upon installing it, getting about 10-ish addons (the equivalent of 10 separate processes in chrome each using 20-60 megs!), and while running three tab groups with a total of about 15 tabs, it is still a cool 235 megs in memory!!! This, while downloading at maximum speed, listening to music, and generally abusing my PC the way I usually do. So - my solution: ditch Chrome, and get Mozilla 11 with the latest TACO - compatible with mozilla Stable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...