Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's officially deprecated, but it still works. https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix
Isn’t that non-origin?
The origin/non-origin difference only applies to uBlock Origin, not uMatrix.
DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
421–430 of 475 posts
Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
#422Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
What specifics? Wouldn’t they just pay MS for access to the API (though with some special volume discount that won’t be public)?
Yes, but what data do they pass onto MS and what do they do with that data? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31051050
I asked Kagi, and they said they aren’t forced to send such data and aren’t.
And unless Ecosia (where the quote seems to come from) is extremely shady, they are only sending two octets and not three.
Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we know these privacy claims are true? What if Kagi was Chinese or Russian, would you still trust it and why? And how do we know Kagi doesn't end up the same way as DDG?
(Kagi dev here) Kagi is privately owned US corporation. > And how do we know Kagi doesn't end up the same way as DDG? Being a paid service means Kagi's incentives are very different. Instead of selling your data or profiting from feeding into ad-tech food chain, we are interested in selling you a subscription. This changes everything as the number one thing in Kagi's universe becomes what the users want, different to…
Thanks for the explanation.
> But most plainly, we have no incentive or reason to do otherwise.
One reason is: to improve your services. Other reasons could appear over time.
> Sadly I can not think of a way to verify them (let me know if you have one).
The privacy claims could be verified by recurring external audits.
Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
>you know when you use their products as intended you have no privacy This isn't true. Google's privacy policy is not lax as you suggest it is.
Could you clarify a bit? If you are logged in they store almost everything, as is evidenced by Google takeout.
Unfortunately, Google takeout doesn't seem to give all the data. Last time viber stored "secret data" in google drive. I tried to download everything via takeout. It doesn't seem to include those data.
Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
#426I don’t need these results but I don’t want to support this behaviour/trend. Can anyone recommend a decent non-Google alternative.
Your choices are limited, and very few independent indexes. Most options are Bing alternatives: https://seirdy.one/2021/03/10/search-engines-with-own-indexe...
That was fascinating, thanks so much for sharing it
Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
#427Question: 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…
Something feels off about DDG, especially once I found out that they funnel you into downloading their iOS app in order to sign up for their new browser’s waitlist.
It’s like a dark pattern that an advertiser would use, not a privacy-focused search engine.
Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
#428As for the YouTube-DL part specifically, I'm pretty sure that's a side-effect of them being dependent upon Bing for the actual index: https://www.bing.com/search?q=site%3Ayoutube-dl.org Also, _come on_; if someone gives up after one search term, which also includes advanced site-restricting syntax, there's no way they'd be able to operate youtube-dl anyway: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=youtube-dl&ia=web
Yeah idk why someone would type in the full URL of a site and not just the term they're looking for in a search engine...what a dumb way to test that on their part.
The article doesn't explain it well, but if you search for just `youtube-dl` (without the "site" prefix), the main youtube-dl.org site is still not present in the search results.
Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Kagi dev here) Kagi is privately owned US corporation. > And how do we know Kagi doesn't end up the same way as DDG? Being a paid service means Kagi's incentives are very different. Instead of selling your data or profiting from feeding into ad-tech food chain, we are interested in selling you a subscription. This changes everything as the number one thing in Kagi's universe becomes what the users want, different to…
Thanks for the explanation. > But most plainly, we have no incentive or reason to do otherwise. One reason is: to improve your services. Other reasons could appear over time. > Sadly I can not think of a way to verify them (let me know if you have one). The privacy claims could be verified by recurring external audits.
> The privacy claims could be verified by recurring external audits.
Not in reality. Nothing prevents a bad player from misusing user data once an audit is done. External audit would only be a good cover.
Re: DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN constantly mentions DDG is really just Bing in disguise and they're essentially the same. However, that can't be entirely true because they produce different results for the same search term. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=obscure+search+term&ia=web https://www4.bing.com/search?q=obscure+search+term That being said, when Bing censored "tank man", DDG's image search also produced 0 results for "tank man".
Did you try in incognito? Your search gave me nearly identical results.
Very different ones here.