291–300 of 337 posts
I just checked Google search with Chrome and Firefox in Debian, and both still show URLs for actual search results. But not for ads. So I wonder if Google plans to drop URLs from actual search results. And if they do, whether using Startpage, or DDG with the Google option, would still show them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago, took a little while to get used but as it's my default search engine I've got used to it. The funny thing for me is now google's search results look strange to me as I've not kept up with all their "tweaks/changes". I think best thing is switch default search to a new engine to get used to it, takes a little adjusting but worthwhile.
It's the same for me. I tried DDG maybe a year ago..and couldn't stand it, I found it too lousy. But now I'm trying again and this time it's slowly sticking in. Idk if it for better or my tolerance against Google decreased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be a better way to quote, such that the quote is distinguishable from my own prose?
> What would be a better way to quote Using italics by putting asterisks around the quote seems to work reasonably well.
Thanks, I'll try it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do we have any recourse against this monopoly...? Once upon a time, Congress used to write and pass laws to protect Americans from egregious abuses of power like this. Of course, that time is long gone.
> egregious abuses of power like this Do you honestly think removing URLs from search results is an "egregious abuse of power?" This is the company that buys credit card transactions from Visa et al. and associates them with your maps and and history for the benefit of advertisers, and you're complaining about them removing a design element 95% of people probably don't care about?
Yes, it very obviously is. Google the search engine, and therefore Google, would never have gotten off the ground if it had hidden URL from the beginning.
> and you're complaining about them removing a design element 95% of people probably don't care about?
If so many people don't care about something so basic and crucial to not being a serf in the information age, then that makes the issue even more important, and Google's behaviour even more egregious.
So you can see the real address in your browser's hint, at least until lets-be-evil point the link to their trackers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US anti-trust actions have historically been triggered by abuse of market dominance (e.g. leveraging market dominance in other markets; anti-competitive behavior in a dominated market) which is not coupled to the ease of using a different service. Ease-of-switching puts the onus on the user to recognize corporate violations of anti-trust law rather than upon the company violating anti-trust regulation. It doesn't rea…
I keep seeing that “companies shouldn’t use their dominance in one area to get into another area”. So does that mean that Netflix shouldn’t have used its dominance in DVD rentals to get into streaming and just die when another company did? Should Apple not have been allowed to use its dominance in the music/media player business to get into the smart phone business? Antitrust was traditionally used when a company kep…
> Such conduct constitutes an abuse of a dominant position and hence is in breach of competition law.
> It is not illegal for a company to enjoy dominance in a particular market. However, a company which is dominant in one market can easily use its market power to cement or further expand its dominance, or leverage it into separate markets. [0]
Regarding Netflix and Apple, the answer is "it depends". Cases are determined on a case-by-case basis.
Not sure we disagree (?). My understanding is that Google has a practical monopoly on search. This is not illegal in and of itself. Anti-competitive practices that leverage its dominance in search, however, would likely run afoul of EU and US antitrust regulations. (I'm not an attorney, and My understanding of antitrust law is at the level of layperson. )
[0] https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Google-s-abusive-use-...
Don't like it but there is an up side - the main links now seem to point directly to the destination, instead of google's tracking servers. So you can see the real address in your browser's hint, at least until lets-be-evil point the link to their trackers.
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/a#...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found that DDG is okay for two types of queries: common everyday topics and technical queries. For many other niche topic, it’s not good at all. I use DDG as the default and have been doing so for many years. I still have to add !g every time I search for violin related questions. The results are often just not relevant at all. I think DDG still has a long way to grow to be a 100% replacement for Google outside the…
Regarding technical queries, they consistently return links to the python 2 docs, never python 3. What I assume people do is they click on the python 2 docs then change the version on the python website. So, from bings perspective it looks like people want the python 2 links. It always frustrates me and makes looking stuff up longer than needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant Google in general. It’s yet another tiny step in a terrible direction. At this point I would love to legislate most of Google out of existence, personally.
I don't really buy using legislation. Alternatives exist and people don't seem to care to use them. That's the market at work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant Google in general. It’s yet another tiny step in a terrible direction. At this point I would love to legislate most of Google out of existence, personally.
Google does lots of great things for people, so it looks to me like you're overreacting. Finding the right balance is important in regulation.