281–290 of 475 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you only paint or play the clarinet to get a paycheck from Disney, yes.
So now we're going back to the central point. Before it sounded like you wanted me to "stop producing". Now from this reply, it sounds like you don't actually care if I stop producing, you're just objecting to me getting paid and demanding payment.
Are you getting paid to produce cultural pollution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not OP, but I'll weigh in: Google - it's a really good search engine, but obviously biased and doesn't care about your privacy. I use it on my work machine. Brave Search - I'm not sure if another service (like Bing) powers their results, but it works pretty well for my personal use cases.
I switched to Brave Search and generally am pleased. I did notice current events is somewhat lacking. I was searching one of the wildfires in NM yesterday and no dice. Otherwise for general information or more "static" type info I've been pleased.
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 used them nearly exclusively and recommended them to all my friends. Once they started censoring content for political reasons (Ukraine), that ended instantly.
A search engine is largely two things:
(1) crawling and discovering all available resources (2) parsing a user’s request for a resource of some kind and providing the user with a means of accessing “best matches”
This process is inherently, unequivocally and fundamentally biased. It HAS TO be. There is no abject, absolute, canonical result for a search engine query. Ddg/google “censor” () all kinds of results constantly. Malware sites, sites that just mirror content from stackoverflow, sites that may cause public harm, etc. That’s the whole point.
Another note: they may be downranking those results because users are unsatisfied with their quality. DDGs job is to help the user find what they are looking for, and if the user finds a bunch of Russian propaganda that is blatantly not what they wanted when they search for something (perhaps because Russia is exploiting SEO or using other techniques to inflate their position), why wouldn’t they tweak their product?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which search engines are not "shit" in your estimation?
I'm not OP, but I'll weigh in: Google - it's a really good search engine, but obviously biased and doesn't care about your privacy. I use it on my work machine. Brave Search - I'm not sure if another service (like Bing) powers their results, but it works pretty well for my personal use cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some people are under the impression that it’s possible to build a useful search engine that is completely algorithmic and unbiased. It’s just not possible, though. Any algorithm for which there is incentive to game, people will game. And legitimate sources often have no incentive to game the algorithms. There’s no one algorithm that will do everything perfectly. Eventually you’ll have some phishing scam, lif…
I think it all comes down to the type of curation being done and if the choices are made out of objectivity of subjectivity. Like prioritizing a legitimate website over a scam website isn't punishing the scam website because of a controversial opinion or the search engine operator didn't like the content, it's because the website is objectively a scam, it's easy to objectively identify it as such, and everyone agrees…
I'm not convinced that DDG isn't downranking all junk. Russian disinfo spreaders and consumers just scream the hardest when their garbage is rightfully pushed aside. Same as the Q-worshipping crowd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully agree. "collateral damage" just means...why can't I just consume everything for free, as if it's some human right?
It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain.…
> It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area.
This is not related to copyright law at all. I agree ISP monopolies are a problem, for any number of reasons.
>It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago.
Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit. You could make a good argument here about how copyright law is too long, but that point is lost in the rest of the sentence.
>It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain.
No, that doesn't make any sense. This is a blatant misunderstanding of copyright that I see so often. Copyright doesn't stop you from creating new projects. You don't need to get the rights if it's a fully original work. You could also make a good argument here about how licensing is too difficult to obtain sometimes but that point is also lost.
>It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants
This never happened. Youtube-dl is still up, if I recall for the short period it was taken down there were like 20 forks that popped up immediately.
>It means accepting internet censorship without oversight.
This also never happened and is contradictory to everything else you said, your complaint actually seems to be that there's too much oversight.
>It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own.
This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one.
>It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away
No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived.
>If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention.
There's no coherent issue anywhere else in your reply and there's nothing to pay attention to. I've tried to make these comments constructive so maybe that can guide you towards what your real issue is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So now we're going back to the central point. Before it sounded like you wanted me to "stop producing". Now from this reply, it sounds like you don't actually care if I stop producing, you're just objecting to me getting paid and demanding payment.
I'd be objecting anyone that gets paid to produce cultural pollution. Are you getting paid to produce cultural pollution?
Well, after using DDG exclusively for web search since maybe 2014, I'll have to jump ship. I was never chuffed about them not using their own index, but removing priate sites and yt-dl, and the improving.duckduckgo.com business is exactly the type of behaviour I left Google for DDG over. I've liked what little of Brave Search I've used, but I'm not in love with Brave as a company either so perhaps I'll audition some…