DuckDuckGo Ups Ante: Gives $300K to ‘Raise the Standard of Trust
"For the seventh year in a row, the search engine that promises not to stalk your online moves puts its money where its mouth is, this year by donating $300,000 to organizations that work towards online privacy".
I'm sorry, but I do not trust Duck Duck Go. This is mostly becuase they use Bing for search results and have scrutinized Google without critisizing Microsoft. I detail this and other problems here,
If any of those problems have been corrected, I'd like to know.
Try searx.me then its a metasearch engine which is completely free software. :)
Let's not trust anybody will we? God I use trisquel and like freedom too, but when do we come to the point to know that there are nothing 100% pure! Such purism as I see in this forum sometimes makes me somewhat irritated.
You don't trust DuckDuckGO so you suggest to use google instead?
jajajajajajajajajaja from your link
"I have yet to learn of a reasonable alternative and will continue using Google because they still have the best free software search results."
Oh no!!!!!!!!!! Microsoft is gonna see my results I don't trust Microsoft so I'll keep using NSA's best friend google:
Your data must be pretty safe my friend
Well, yes, that's what I do because I want good free software results. There may not be much difference in the privacy, but DDG has hidden important free software projects from users the same way Microsoft's search engine does. DDG is foolish enough to use Bing in some kind of secret mixing algorithm and either lacks the technical competence to protect the quality of their search results, or is a willing Microsoft partner. I don't pretend this is the best way to search but it's not the worst.
I want good free software results.
DDG has hidden important free software projects from users the same way Microsoft's search engine does.
secret mixing algorithm
As if Google's algorithms were published. What is known is Google's involvement in the PRISM program!
lacks the technical competence to protect the quality of their search results
That does not even mean something.
is a willing Microsoft partner.
It's hard for me to believe you have forgotten our discussion from eight days ago where I showed you a video of DDG hiding free software results just like Bing. Not letting Bing do that to your results takes both competence and a desire to use it. One or the other is missing at DDG. You can call that a "conspiracy theory" if you like and repeat it over and over, but you won't convince many people that DDG did not do what they can see with their own eyes.
> I showed you a video of DDG hiding free software results just like Bing
You mean the one that I debunked?
I do remember the discussion: you pretending, like you did again, that DDG hides free software projects from their search results; onpon4 uploading https://trisquel.info/files/Screenshot%20from%202017-02-17%2008-29-50.png that shows, using the exact same query, that free software projects are the top of DDG's results. You will not convince people that DDG censors free software results when they can see with their own eyes that it simply is wrong. By the way, since onpon4's query, libreoffice.org has become the first result: see attached screenshot.
Do you trust Microsoft Bing for fixing things exactly the same way?
See the attached screenshot. https://www.libreoffice.org is the first result, here in Brazil (Bing's results are country and profile dependent but I do not think Microsoft has my profile: I never use their products/services).
Not that you care about facts...
I think you misunderstood my question but you answered it anyway. You don't trust Microsoft even though they today show the search results you think are organic. Why difference does it make that DDG is doing the same? If Microsoft Bing were to hide Libre Office tomorrow, would DDG hide it again? If Bing were such an unimportant input, DDG would not have been fooled in the past. We should not trust them in the present or future.
Microsoft makes wonderful promises all day, everyday. They only fool people who want to believe them.
> they use Bing for search results
> scrutinized Google without critisizing Microsoft
DDG hides free software results like Bing does, and sends adverting money to Microsoft. DDG dillutes search results with Microsoft's free software hostile, filtered copy of Google results. People have documented DDG hiding free software results in the same way Bing does. You pay for that service through advertising. A company that does these things can not be trusted to protect your privacy. I provide links to these and other claims in my write up, mentioned above.
> DDG hides free software results like Bing does
We went over this years ago. DDG gets its search results from several different sources and mixes them together. We don't know exactly how this works (since DDG's backend hasn't been released), but there is no evidence of DDG's results being censored, irrespective of whether or not Bing does so.
> People have documented DDG hiding free software results in the same way Bing does.
> A company that does these things can not be trusted to protect your privacy.
No company can be trusted with your privacy. What's your point? It has nothing to do with charity work.
For searching, the only way to ensure your privacy is to go through a proxy (e.g. Tor). Everyone should do this. You could say that DuckDuckGo is not any better than Google (except to the extent that you like its search results better), but there's no evidence that it's any worse.
OK, here's a citation.
If you can't load the article directly, there's a copy at the Internet Archive.
I tried a few searches myself and got similar results. That does not prove malice on DDG's part, but it does show you that you can't trust them to get things right. Microsoft is so malicious that it is folly, if not intentional malice, to pass them on the way DDG does.
If the only way to protect your privacy is to go through a proxy, why is DDG given preferential treatment? Doesn't that mean their promise is meaningless even if they had the technical competence and legal framework required to keep it?
The link you gave is not indexed on archive.org. This is the one that is indexed:
Though considering the article doesn't say anything substantial, I don't know why you even referenced it. It's the video which is the original source.
I can tell exactly why DDG didn't return LibreOffice as a result at the time: the video author searched for "open source office suite". LibreOffice doesn't advertise itself as "open source" very much. Not that it matters anyway, because it's not true anymore:
As for Firefox, I don't get Firefox immediately in the results of either DDG or Google (unless you count the Wikipedia page for Firefox, which only DDG shows). In fact, the results suck for both of them. The first result on Google and the fifth result on DDG is an article purporting to list the "11 best open source Web browser", but it actually links the proprietary Google Chrome and Opera browsers in the top three alongside Firefox, and the first result on DDG similarly lists Google Chrome, but it's a little better since it doesn't list Opera or Pale Moon.
So let's summarize everything here:
1. The first claim is demonstrably false. When it was true, it was because the user searched for "open source", which LibreOffice doesn't advertise itself as very much.
2. The second claim is a half-truth, but the problem with the search results on both search engines is inclusion of proprietary Web browsers, not exclusion of a non-libre browser that is considered to be "open source". And that seems to be caused by a loose definition by authors of what is "open source", not by a problem in the search engines.
That DDG works today is not the point, it's that they hid the results at any time that matters. The people at Bing and DDG undid their censorship shortly after people noticed and wrote about it. What matters is that Microsoft at the time used their search engine the way they have used all of their "controlled" press, to promote themselves and hide their competitors. There have been and continue to be other instances of this in Bing and people who look will probably find them passed onto DDG.
To understand fully Microsoft's propaganda methods as far as "independent publishers" go, please see the section, "Controling the Press" from the following anti-trust document analysis,
Since then, Microsoft has continuously tried to goof sources of information like Google and Wikipedia. They are the largest source bogus DMCA takedown noticies for Google, so it may be that Google results are also going into the toilet but I have not seen that yet myself, and I'm digressing.
Trusting Microsoft directly or through a proxy like Duck Duck Go is foolish. Microsoft have a long, court proven, history of censorship and other media manipulation and DDG is foolish to use them at all. The rest of us should not trust their secret mixture of Microsoft's malice and valid search resutls, especially after is has been shown to hide free software results. If the privacy difference is not real, why favor one over the other?
The goal of reducing Google power should not be achieved by elevating an even worse monster like Microsoft. Microsoft has done so much to make free software use difficult or impossible through hardware, software, and retail manipulation. Recall, the Vista hardware logo requirments, "secure boot" by uefi, continued promotion of awful file formats, software patents, and so on and so forth. We need search that's independent of both to really protect ourselves. Google has not yet done these terrible things to their hardware or software.
Archive.org does have the article I referenced,
The text is much like the article you found but it lacks the endless animation that consumes so much cpu that my laptop is hot for the first time ever. I'll quote it so people don't have to look at it or download the video for themselves, though I encourage both.
"... the primary goal of a search engine is to show relevant results. We are aware that Microsoft's Bing doesn't show quite a lot of open source projects on the first page. LibreOffice, the default office suite of all major GNU/Linux based operating systems is missing from Bing's first page."
"Some readers were pointing at LibreOffice being the second result on DDG, which is not correct. DDG is not at all showing any results from LibreOffice.org, similar to Bing. So, DuckDuckGo and Bing users will never land on Mozilla.org or LibreOffice pages."
The video demonstrates what the article said and both were made by the same person. Google gave the results at the time, regardless of the use of terms, Bing/DDG hid them.
> That DDG works today is not the point, it's that they hid the results at any time that matters.
Stop spreading FUD. There is no evidence that DDG was ever guilty of wrongdoing.
> To understand fully Microsoft's propaganda methods
And please, take your conspiracy theories back to Techrights.
I think there is one big reason why using Duckduckgo or any other search engine is better than google:
the more diffusive your traces in the internet are, the better. Google controls so much of the internet, it's
really important to weaken their power.
I think it's even more important to get Microsoft out of the way. Google's power is dangerous, but Microsoft is still worse for free software.
Dude try searx it is free software. If you don't like duckduckgo fine but there are alternatives even if we disagree about duckduckgo.
And yes, microsoft is vastly more hostile to free software and even open source.
though google isn't innocent either.
both companies do a lot of surveillance or as some call it, "spying"
Why isn't searx the default search engine for abrowser or icecat?
Onpon4, do you use tor with icecat or the tor browser?
Or for all net activity?
Or for none?
Tor Browser. Using Tor through IceCat is a bad idea; it gives you a more unique fingerprint.
Though I must admit, I don't actually use it all that much. That's mostly down to convenience; it's a lot of effort to open a different Web browser every time I want to do a search.
I read what were posted, as well as the links here pointed. I personally don't see a problem with duckduckgo. Even if it does use some of microsoft resources, there is no evidence indicating that the site tracks it's users.
I've interacted with Will Hill several times before on Diaspora. That was years ago, but he hasn't changed a bit. He's practically a religious follower of Techrights, an alarmist blog about libre software issues; and he does nothing but poison the well and spread FUD and conspiracy theories.
Except to call him out on this (if you are so inclined), I suggest you do not give him the time of day. And don't argue with him. He responds to arguments by repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
+1. Just look at http://184.108.40.206/photo_album/chron/desktop/opinion/2013_06_21-avoid_duck_duck_go/ : while DuckDuckGo must indeed respect the law (it is not its fault!), the rest of the text is either irrelevant or pure conspiracy theory.
For instance the "Accusations of Technical Incompetence" are only based on:
- one comment that a random user posted below a news article and that says "In the past I *believe* I've seen search ad links on DDG that included my IP address in the URL";
- a thread on a forum that starts with "Startpage seems using user's IP address to serve Ads"... what has nothing to do with *storing* such addresses (what DDG promises not do do).
The fantasy that "Ut oh, It's Microsoft" requires much imagination. Read this message that DDG sent to a journalist (integral text):
According to Will Hill, that text "promote[s] [DDG] at Google's expense but not Microsoft's". You did not read that? Well, you lack imagination. Will Hill goes further. Only using the text above he writes:
This is basically DDG participating in a Microsoft smear campaign. Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and many other companies were implicated in the leaked PRISM documents, why does DDG only mention Google?
Don't you see it now? It is indeed extremely suspect that DDG's PR person did not writte "We're a search engine (like Google, Bing, Yahoo, AOL, [what else?])". Obviously "a smear campaign" that "treats Microsoft as an equal when it comes to a service or product and only mentions competitors when it's time to talk about problems" (Will Hill's words: not mentioning a company apparently is "treating it as an equal").
All that bullshit and much more to conclude:
If you are going to use a US based search engine, it might as well be Google. (...) Please Boycott Microsoft and other PRISM companies.
Logical? Will Hill applies his own advice. The first part I mean. He even uses Google+ to post more bullshit that he then references on his site, e.g., https://plus.google.com/113579520393333767984/posts/bgmZjEwRhAe (where DDG's founder criticizing Google is supposed to prove that "Duck Duck Go is too close to Microsoft to be trusted").
I would not call Matt Cutts a random person who's opinion is unworthy of consideration.
In the Ycombinatory thread, Matt Cutts tells us, "In the past I believe I've seen search ad links on DDG that included my IP address in the URL." He's answering a question about DDG's technical competence in protecting user privacy with a great big, no way. Yes, Cutts works for Google but everything else I've seen from him has been both honest and accurate.
As for Jeff Jarvis, would you say that I have not accurately relayed his annoyance at being spammed by DDG? If you are going to quote him, please quote that part too,
"I'm appalled that I just got email from someone flacking for DuckDuckGo exploiting the current NSA story. I guess there is no solidarity in Silicon Valley. ... the problem here isn't Google and using this to try to attack your competition is unseemly. The problem here is government. I have a new name for DuckDuckGo but it's too obvious and I won't use it."
I consider Jeff Jarvis a senior, experienced and well respected journalist with an opinion worth quoting. He is, "Author of "Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live" and "What Would Google Do?" Director of the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism at the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Blogs at Buzzmachine.com and writes for the Guardian. Formerly creator and founding editor of Entertainment Weekly; president and creative director of Advance.net; Sunday editor and associate publisher of the NY Daily News; columnist on the San Francisco Examiner."
It's true that I agree with Jarvis about DDG's spam and that I, perhaps not Jarvis, see DDG's mentioning of Google's cooperation with the NSA as a Google smear. Microsoft is a willing NSA partner and a much greater collaborator than Google is. Is there a reporter on Earth who does not know that Google is a search engine? A journalist covering PRISM? Microsoft has a long history of ridiculous efforts to influence journalists in similar ways about things that might make Microsoft look as bad as they are, my favorite being to call every Microsoft virus a "computer" virus while making disigner bug pages to promote really rare GNU, Linux, and Android bugs. What would you think if I said, "I'm a commenter (like Magic Bannana) that doesn't _list_of_horribles_. _big_improbable_unverifiable_boast_" It was nasty and wrong for them to slam a competitor rather than simply explain themselves, "You'll be interested to hear about DDG. We're a search engine that does not track users. ..." A PR person should know that, and how much what they did write would irritate people, better than anyone else.
It is also true that I cite my own collection of facts and opinions about DDG. What should I do, rewrite it everytime the subject comes up?
Thank you for taking the time to read it and point out some ways it can be improved. I will make make the attribution and quoting better and maybe include a few new links to better document Microsoft problems. It's not my favorite thing to do, but it's worth doing.
Matt Cutts works for Google but everything else I've seen from him has been both honest and accurate.
As if working for Google, that you use and defend, was a problem for you. Anyway, I correct my words:
The "Accusations of Technical Incompetence" are only based on one comment that a *Google engineer* posted below a news article and that says "In the past I *believe* I've seen search ad links on DDG that included my IP address in the URL" (...)
I am sorry: it really looks like a far better proof where writing that the commenter in question is working for a competitor.
If you are going to quote him...
I am not.
I consider Jeff Jarvis a senior, experienced and well respected journalist with an opinion worth quoting. He is, author of (...) "What Would Google Do?"
The opinion he expresses in the text you quote is "there is no solidarity in Silicon Valley". Nothing more. Absolutely nothing about "DDG participating in a Microsoft smear campaign".
I repeat my suggestion: don't argue with Will Hill. He never listens; all he does is loop back to the same nonsense ad nauseam.
The only kind of response you should write to him is refutations of his clearly false statements, and "citation needed" when he makes a specific bold claim (followed by said refutation). Anything else (including discussing his hypocrisy) is pointless.
This part of this conversation has been very disapointing. It's involved viscous, personal attacks and inflamatory language. I've been told things like, "take your conspiracy theories back to Techrights," and that my careful research is, "All that bullshit." What's more, other respected engineers and professionals I quote have been treated with disrespect. I expected more friendly and professional behavior from a Trisquel forum. We're all on the same side here, advocating free software, aren't we? Don't we have respect for industry peers at Google and in the press? What is going on here? There are so many better things to talk about.
The only positive advocacy of Duck Duck Go I've seen is one of minimized negativity. One person said that it would be a good idea to dilute Google's power because it's bad for power to be concentrated that way in any person or company. I can agree with that, but I was actually hoping someone would point me to something good about DDG. It was said, "We went over this years ago," without citation. Will I find the same kind of skeletal description of secret forumula result mixing in those prior conversations too? Has there ever been a good reason to use DDG other than the impossible to prove promises of the site owners?
In all the time since people have switched free software projects to using DDG, based on those meaningless promisses, has no one made a list of Google alternatives worth using?
> It was said, "We went over this years ago," without citation.
Just a couple examples. They're not hard to find.
Thank you for the links. I've added one of them to my essay about DDG. The other, noting that DDG is hosted on AWS, is something I already have good links for.
Your five year old representation of me is very strange. You say I'm someone who,
"calls Windows 8 'Vista H8' (referring not to freedom problems, but to the silly drama about the interface change in this version of Windows), and thinks that compiling binaries of libre software for popular proprietary systems somehow encourages people to switch to those proprietary systems."
I'm flattered that you paid enough attention to know about Techrights and to know my name, but where did you get those ideas about me? Anyone who reads enough of my comments and essays to know half of the things you talked about should know better about my opinions.
If I take the time to look around, will I find more of the same from you?
> where did you get those ideas about me?
From the conversations I had with you right around that time on Diaspora. I'm sorry, but that's just funny. I didn't expect you to remember me, but how can you not remember your own statements that you repeated constantly from just a couple of years ago, and over which you literally engaged in an argument that lasted for dozens of comments?
How indeed? Can you show me examples of me constantly talking about silly Vista H8 GUI drama rather than software freedom issues of Windows? Does a Bing or DDG search turns up such stuff? A Google search for "will hill" "vista h8" did not do it for me. I may have also complained about Vista H8's awful and dysfunctional GUI, but I would mostly do that as an example of the injustices of non free software.
I often argue that porting free software to Windows is a bad idea, but not for the single and odd reason you have put into my mouth. I usually say that it's a waste of developer time that makes people less likely to leave Windows. You might find me saying that the comfort of such ports makes it easier for new GNU/Linux users to give up. A long time ago, I thought it was a good idea to port a few key applications, like a browser and an office suite, but I now think even those are counter productive. Microsoft locked both Libre Office and Mozilla out of accelerated graphics on several versions of Windows, and I think Microsoft should just be left to rot. More recently, I saw how porting to Windows made Mozilla's build system far more complicated than it has to be and I objected to that damage. Porting whole desktop systems, like KDE, to Windows is a terrible waste of time for the same reasons but will do even more damage to free software users. In general, I think porting to Windows gives people the illusion that free software projects endorse the use of non free software and it's beyond time to end that practice. Most normal people have abandoned Windows for Android/Linux. If it's practical to port to "popular" systems at all, Windows should no longer be the target. I'd rather liberate the hardware people us and be able to offer them completely free, Respects Your Freedom systems.
Again, I have to ask you where you get your odd ideas?
> Can you show me examples of me constantly talking about silly Vista H8 GUI drama
No. That's not what I meant.
"Talking about" in that context was used to mean "referring to". That was (and still is) my interpretation of what your silly pet name for Windows 8 is referring to. As in, you were piggybacking on that backlash.
Yes I did piggy back on that backlash, because it's an example of users noticing the injustice of non free software. Microsoft made minor changes to Windows to get over the stigma of Vista but left the digital restrictions and and spying malice of Vista in place, so people in the Techrights community have called every version of Windows "Vista" since. I made up the name Vista H8 because Windows 8 showed how much Microsoft hates users. That hatred of users is one of the corrosive effects of software ownership. I repeatedly explained that so you should be able to point to my reasons if you would like to call them silly.
> digital restrictions and and spying malice of Vista
These were first documented in Windows XP, not Windows Vista.
It is true that Microsoft was restricting and spying on XP users, but Vista came with a whole new framework for it. Peter Gutmann wrote an excellent analysis of Vista at release time,
This is not just a historical curriosity. Microsoft's Vista logo program continues to plague X86 hardware, and the company is working to push it into ARM. UEFI and "secure boot" can be thought of as implementations of the same. As Richard Stallman warned after the Sony music CD fiasco, software owners learned their lesson and burnt digital restrictions into firmware so they can't be removed. Please see the Libreboot FAQ for the continuing efforts of software owners to claim complete control of your computer,
This is a grim time for free software. We must do everything we can to avoid aiding the companies responsible for it, and to reward those doing what's right.
These things should have been obvious before Snowden proved them to us. In this context, DDG should never have used Bing results. Post Snowden, it will be difficult for any US company to recover their lost reputation, but especially difficult for those that played Microsoft's game.
You know, judging by the contents of this page on your website, it seems you don't like systemd:
Well, I have bad news for you. Trisquel 8 will use systemd. So I guess that means you can go away now and start including Trisquel in your FUD circle. Probably something about how the Trisquel community tried to assassinate your character, how its devs don't respond to community concerns, how it's putting everyone in jeopardy by using Ubuntu binaries in many cases instead of recompiling them, or how systemd will destroy it from the inside and eat your grandma. The possibilities are endless!
Running off users is a curious goal for a free software project, onpon4, but you won't get rid of me that easily. I trust the community to solve systemd issues and will be watching what Richard Stallman does. If you succeed in driving him off, you will probably run off most people. At that point, I suppose, your work will be done.
At this point, I don't have much more to say to you. I gave you the chance to explain your odd and at least five year long misrepresentation of me and the Techrights community. Instead you chose to express outright hostility. I will expect more of the same whenever I see you.
> I trust the community to solve systemd issues
That won't happen. Trisquel uses what Ubuntu uses. There is no reason to expend extra effort to use a worse init system that isn't fully supported upstream.
> and will be watching what Richard Stallman does.
RMS doesn't care about systemd. It's libre, and that's all that matters.
RMS also doesn't have a problem with DDG. In fact, it's his primary search engine.
Name calling does not make your point.
What is techrights? by the way... just a conspiracy website? just curious...