https://mobile.twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318

I guess three years was a good run: https://mobile.twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1043859278774370305

  • Staines [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I think by the end of the decade, every country/sphere of countries will have their own carefully curated, walled extranets.

    Once everything you disagree with is dismissed out of hand as being misinformation, there's no stopping it.

    • UlyssesT
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      deleted by creator

    • TheGhostOfTomJoad [he/him,they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Sure does feel like it. Everything inconvenient to the truth is Russian or Chinese disinformation, but our information can be relied on, just trust us.

    • blobjim [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      And it's so easy for the US to start censoring websites even without blocking them. They can start rate limiting packets from other countries with the ISP "fast lane" excuse since "net neutrality" was ended. That will make using any website in another country unbearably slow so as to be impossible to use. Not that it matters much, since it is very rare that I even visit websites hosted in other countries.

  • Catherine_Steward [she/her]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I got real sus vibes from duckduckgo the moment I started seeing fuckin TV advertisements at my workplace for it. The moment you've got enough money to run TV ads I don't think I want any part in what you're offering lmao

  • TheGhostOfTomJoad [he/him,they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I thought something was going on with ddg lately. Hilarious replies to the tweet too. Liberals are so fucking smug while being demonstrably wrong

  • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    My favorite absolutely baby-brained response on that thread is "who are you to decide for me what's relevant on the internet?" What the fuck do you think the point of a search engine is?

    • NaturalsNotInIt [any]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      When people stopped paying for TV and print media, all those propaganda voices had to go somewhere. It also pisses them off so, so, so much that the open internet just let's you view primary sources about life outside the "international rules based order" rather than tall tales about what evil Big Bad's regime is spreading all over the globe with the source "trust me bro, we're good for it".

      • ancom20 [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        This! It's still a problem in academia also, I remember at university they would not let you (and afaik still don't) cite Wikipedia. Has to be all "academic", in other words institutionally approved sources (books, official statements etc).

          • ancom20 [none/use name]
            ·
            edit-2
            3 years ago

            Agree, the point was more about only "legit" sources being acceptable. Which do have their own biases. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816

              • ancom20 [none/use name]
                ·
                edit-2
                3 years ago

                I wasn't aware of that. I knew they could cite mainstream sources heavily and exclusively, but I didn't know that was the policy rather than just what most editors did.

        • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          That's less a bias issue than it is an issue with what kinds of sources in general are appropriate for citation in academic writing. The issue is not with Wikipedia itself, but rather with the fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, like any encyclopedia. I think most professors on the younger side recognize Wikipedia as a generally reliable source for information (with some exceptions). It's a great place to start your research, but it's usually far too general to be of use in constructing a good paper. It's useful for orienting yourself, getting a 10,000 meter view on a subject, or learning what the general professional consensus is about some issue (again, with some exceptions--it's much less trustworthy when it comes to current events and politics than it is when it comes to quantum mechanics), but it should be a jumping off point, like any other tertiary source.

    • MerryChristmas [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Why do they always use those profile pictures? Do they have some sort of cultural connotation for out of touch liberals?

    • Lundi [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I remember someone here recommending DDG...

      What's a good search engine? google has become bing tier garbage.

      • blobjim [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        Maybe https://www.baidu.com/? It's mostly in Chinese but you can search English words. There's also Yandex (Russian search engine) I guess, which has an English UI.

        If you're ever wonder "What's a good version of ____?" just look for other countries' version. It's not necessarily "good", but it's "sovereign" at least, and is less likely to be collecting data for the US and censoring stuff.

    • Shoegazer [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Quora runs an ad disguised as an answer about DDG lol

      • ancom20 [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        DDG is the only search engine I ever saw billboards for, on a road trip. Suspicious imo.

    • GnastyGnuts [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I think we basically have to accept that every search engine sucks and is going to be politically biased by both the country it operates in, and the personal interests of whoever owns it, and just keep using what's available with suitable caution.

      • Wildgrapes [she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Yup same as it ever was really just now people are saying it out loud instead of claiming impartiality.

        Be it security, search, or anything else on a computer assume that you're in non ideal circumstances because you are. Then act accordingly.

    • Wheaties [she/her]
      ·
      3 years ago

      You don't. Not well, anyways. Every action silicon valley takes is pushing more and more users to the only acceptable alternative: personally curated RSS feeds

    • Animasta [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yandex probably doesn't care enough about English language searches to manipulate them.

    • blobjim [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Baidu and Yandex if you need to look up something on a topic that's sensitive to the US ruling class and in t he news.

      • Terkrockerfeller [she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Doesn't it literally mine crypto or something

        Also started by the dude who got kicked out of Mozilla for funding anti gay marriage groups lmao

      • blobjim [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        No American or western based anything is "good", especially if it's got so much fancy marketing around it.

  • riley
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • sgtlion [any]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      They very clearly track you either not at all, or at least in far fewer ways than Google, an improvement either way. Google doesn't sell your data (except they actually do) because they're also the ad agency which is what most companies find the info is useful for.

      While it's all a grey area on how useful it is, I think it's actively harmful to claim there's no difference here. It does make a meaningful difference.

      Moving away from Google to DDG is a serious blow to online ads and ad effectiveness, and does support pro-privacy orgs. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but DDG is a step up. On top of that, I find DDG to be much better than Google anyway. Though I'm not a loyal fan by any means and would love a totally open and/or uncensored search engine even more.

      Google have also been subpeonad many times for all sorts of info, it's very, very common. Using a company that doesn't store that info in the first place, again, makes a difference.

      • riley
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator

    • skyhighfly [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I'm not gonna use a search engine that has been consistently getting worse for the past like 7 years

    • comi [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Yea, not gonna click through google cookies bullshit

    • blobjim [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Lol their claim in the GitHub link you posted is so sus. How is it "hard to locate favicons". It's literally one of the easiest things to do. The HTML <head> element contains a reference to it, and on most sites it's also at "/favicon.ico". And "different content types" is like one of the main things the web is supposed to be for. HTTP is built around being able to serve multiple content types! So so so sleazy.

  • DragonNest_Aidit [they/them,use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I never really buys into Duckduckgo's claims, particularly with the fact that it's popularity are based off chuds using it as google alternative in mind.

    So reading all the pissed off (lib)ertarians and chuds in the replies actually made me happy. Critical support to DuckDuckGo in ruining righties' day.

    • NaturalsNotInIt [any]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      The "alternative" that DDG provides is that they won't push blatantly lib shit on you like Google, and they won't "censor" "real news" and entertainment like Babylon Bee or Breitbart. It's still NSA shit, just team GOP instead of team DNC.

      • Wheaties [she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        in typical American extravagance, we have two walled-playpen propaganda sorters

        • NaturalsNotInIt [any]
          ·
          3 years ago

          No, we have a DemonRAT infested propaganda machine/source of real FACTS ONLY (reality has a liberal bias :smug:) and a patriotic, unbiased collection of real news/pit of Russian disinformation and Cheeto Hitler yesmen.