Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 475 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

#141

Post by zozbot234 »

perardi wrote: post #98
autoexec wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forgot about that! What a missed opportunity that was for this country. He's exactly the sort of person we need to see more of in politics.

His campaign was much more about electoral reform than copyright reform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_2016_president... Which is broadly more important than copyright reform…and broadly Americans don’t seem to particularly care about either of them all that much.

The case for copyright reform is much more clear-cut, though. There's no plausible argument for the current extent of copyright.

Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

#142

Post by seanw444 »

qiskit wrote: post #85
Kiro wrote: post #50

Funny how the narrative on DDG has changed. I used to get downvoted to oblivion for merely mentioning they used Bing under the hood. Where are all the people that used to defend them so vigorously? I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same people now hating on them.

> I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same people now hating on them. It seems like those people are still here defending ddg. They are even attacking the blog. Weird. I use ddg as my default search and hope they are "privacy-first" as they claim ( thought I have my doubts ). At this point what other option is there? DDG search is noticably censored since they rely on bing. It's obvious to anyone who uses ddg regular…

Searx. Use Searx. Does your search engine of choice fail to get results that the others pick up? Searx grabs all of them and compiles them together. Don't miss another search result!

Also, proxying increases privacy. Also, it's open source and self-hostable.

Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

#143

Post by moehm »

zodzedzi wrote: post #117
mormegil wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Unfortunately NoScript has a limitation that you can't tell it to "only TRUST javascript from example.com when I'm visiting example.com"). uMatrix (which I'm using in desktop Firefox) works exactly like this. Plus it allows you to forbid/allow cookies, styles, images, scripts, media, XHR, and iframes separately (for each origin/domain).

Ok I'll set it up sometime soon and give it a try. Thanks.

It's officially deprecated, but it still works.

https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix

Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

#144

Post by OrvalWintermute »

t0bia_s wrote: post #106
zagrebian wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Duck really collects user data, the moment this is found out, they’re dead, so for that reason alone, they probably don’t do it. The alternative is that they’re betting everything on nobody ever finding out which sounds crazy.

There are so many issues with DDG, but nobody cares [1]. Idea of having privacy focused search engine is strong. Then use kagi or searX. [1] https://lemmy.ml/post/31321

I think we care, but sometimes DDG marketing is pretty strong.

That link you provided makes a good case for why DDG is not the ally we need in the privacy war.

Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

#145

Post by girvo »

s3p wrote: post #127
derevaunseraun wrote: post #73

Question: does anyone actually know what DDG does with user data? Like they market themselves as a "privacy respecting" search engine, but how much of this is truth? I'd imagine there's good money in convincing people they have privacy because then they'll provide more interesting data. Has the company ever been audited? Why should they be trusted to not compromise user privacy? Imo at least Google is honest: you kno…

I read about a Github issue [1] where someone reports that all websites a user clicks on to DDG servers. Reading the employee's response was eye opening. They literally do not care if it has a bad look, they just say "we don't collect your personal information." What??? They are literally admitting to collecting domains in the feed of the Github issue but then just copy and paste their manifesto and expect us to thin…

Seems understandable to me. The explanation isn’t just “copy pasting” their privacy policy, either. You are misrepresenting that thread and discussion.

They’re not a perfectly secure E2E encrypted zero-trust system. They do require some measure of trust to use. This has always been true. Don’t use them if you don’t trust that they won’t misuse your data.

Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

#146

Post by nonrandomstring »

zodzedzi wrote: post #69

I use DDG as my default search engine, along with NoScript in the browser. Often when I visit a new website, I peruse the (long) list of domains that the site is trying to pull javascripts from. I keep most of those source sites in UNTRUSTED status (including some of the big names in search/ads/etc). But I've always had DDG in the TRUSTED category because I had only seen its javascript before on the main DDG website.…

Suck Suck Blow has many redeeming features. One that's GOLD imho;

duckduckgogg42xjoc72x3sjasowoarfbgcmvfimaftt6twagswzczad.onion/

Running a hidden service is just so jolly gentlemanly. And it works in the total absence of JavaScript and no matter what utter lies I tell it about my randomised-per-request UA, and cookie black holes. The obvious dark side is that it's closely connected to Amazon.

Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

#147

Post by girvo »

throwawaybutwhy wrote: post #101
zagrebian wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Duck really collects user data, the moment this is found out, they’re dead, so for that reason alone, they probably don’t do it. The alternative is that they’re betting everything on nobody ever finding out which sounds crazy.

A certain philosopher named Occam would suggest that the simplest explanation for nobody finding out so far is that it is three-letter agencies who might be the ultimate funders and data buyers.

That’s a pretty wild misapplication of Mr. Occams blade, I’d think. There are much simpler explanations than that.

Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

#148

Post by mfer »

autoexec wrote: post #58
rglullis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawrence Lessig

I forgot about that! What a missed opportunity that was for this country. He's exactly the sort of person we need to see more of in politics.

It wasn’t a missed opportunity. It was intentional. When he became popular enough to get into the main debates the Democrat party changed the rules to exclude him.

It has led many to believe the party leaders don’t want his message out there

Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results

#150

Post by z3c0 »

zodzedzi wrote: post #115
z3c0 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately NoScript has a limitation that you can't tell it to "only TRUST javascript from example.com when I'm visiting example.com" I was under the impression that the custom option allowed this. Am I misunderstanding the point of this option?

I see "Custom" allowing you to choose which elements (frame, fonts, etc.) to allow/block for the domain you're configuring. But it doesn't offer the ability to say "apply these settings to the domain example.com only when I'm visiting example.com, and not when I'm visiting anotherexample.com which happens to load JS from example.com".

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, but when configuring the domain in the custom settings, it does allow you to limit the custom rules to only the site you're currently on, via the "Enable these capabilities when top page matches" dropdown. The default is "ANY SITE".
Post reply on HN