61–70 of 865 posts
Prior submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30624320 Brave Search has been gradually improving and I'm pleased with the quality of their results as of late. I encourage folks to give it a spin.
You might want to give Kagi a try. I've been using it for a few weeks and I think it's better than Google for my needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong that they absolutely have the right to choose what results to display. Just like Twitter has the right to choose what content appears on their platform, and same with YouTube, etc. But my opposition is not from a legal standpoint, it is from a moral standpoint. I just think censorship and cancellation is wrong and immoral, even if it is legally allowed. I think it is immoral for some business executi…
If you think censorship is wrong then it follows that you would think that the Russian state is wrong given that they are going as far as denying this is even a war, and actively censoring those that call it one. Are you saying that you're still keen for them to be allowed to do so?
I want to use a search engine that puts all its effort into down-ranking sites that I'm not searching for
I want one which doesn't decide this for me, no-matter how "good for me" it may be, and relies exclusively on my search query to decide what is most relevant. If you really want to flag disinformation, I'd be fine with some sort percentage reliability value or something along those lines, right next to the result. Preferably something that I can also order results by. Totally happy with a 'caveat emptor' clause regar…
This is an excellent point that doesn’t get as much discussion as it deserves. Censorship of misinformation seems to be rooted in the idea that the masses cannot/should not have the freedom to think and discuss information freely.
Also, there is a great deal of valuable insight which can be gained by analyzing a country’s propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want one which doesn't decide this for me, no-matter how "good for me" it may be, and relies exclusively on my search query to decide what is most relevant. If you really want to flag disinformation, I'd be fine with some sort percentage reliability value or something along those lines, right next to the result. Preferably something that I can also order results by. Totally happy with a 'caveat emptor' clause regar…
Exactly. If I'm searching for Russian propaganda, I should see Russian propaganda in my search results. If I'm searching for good bicycle reviews, I should see good bicycle reviews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SEO spam is... spam. No one wants spam, and usually has obvious indicators of SEO manipulation. Q: Who determines what is "Russian disinformation?" A: Teams of "specialists" funded by the US/UK governments (Bellingcat, Atlantic Council, etc).
The people writing the search algorithms decide, just like they decide what a "good" algorithm is.
I guess this did not age well: “[W]hen you search, you expect unbiased results, but that’s not what you get on Google,” @matthewde_silva quotes @yegg https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1114524914227253249 Also, they probably do not realize that they will have to start with Twitter if to be consistent.
Search results should return good information that is relevant to your query, and filter out anything that is not that.
Goodbye, DDG.
but what are the alternatives?
They are in beta right now, If memory serves they will charge around 200usd/year
I will be happy paying that to avoid all that other free search engine bullshit, such as this perfect example of ddg destroying their own ethos for.... I am not even sure what they are getting in return for this
Censorship on Google Search, Youtube didn't start with the Russian invasion. It started with the need to counter Trump. Very scary times. „He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.“ — Friedrich Nietzsche, book Beyond Good and Evil
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does down-ranking disinformation sites globally have to do with complaining about Google customizing results based on its profile of you? EDIT: The rest of the quote is “On Google, you get results tailored to what they think you’re likely to click on, based on the data profile they’ve built on you over time.”
And in this specific case, it feels more like quality control of state-sponsored spam. You can still find these sites—they come up first if you look for them directly, they're just treated as the low quality information than they are.