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

Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

help.duckduckgo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 252 posts

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#21

Post by anonymousab »

The bugs around Exact match and text/content (not site!) exclusion operators not working at all are what keeps me from using it as an actual substitute for Google or Bing. I hope that getting that stuff fixed is a high priority.

DDG is the default in a lot of privacy-oriented browsers and forks, but it gives users a really bad first impression when their first search just doesn't work.

But I suppose that the average mobile search engine user these days doesn't use most search modifiers or operators so maybe they aren't the things to prioritize.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#23

Post by TobyTheDog123 »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #5
nomel wrote: post #2

I was able to convince my wife to switch for anything remotely "controversial", when, during the pandemic, we caught the relatively "real time" disappearance of several "against the grain" articles about covid [1]. By disappeared, I mean top results for the rough concept one day to not being able to find it, even with the exact title and text, the next. I want a search engine, more than a curated guide. [1] https://w…

[flagged]

This word is quickly becoming a part of the "does not mean anything" crew from its constant overuse and involvement in strawman-ing.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#24

Post by anamexis »

mrangle wrote: post #12
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Of course you do not mind. But that means that you have no room for complaint when they delete something that you consider to be "not garbage".

Yes you do. Agreeing with some moderation does not mean you must agree with all moderation.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#25

Post by rlpb »

mrangle wrote: post #14

The sole benefit of DDG is their claim that they don't track. One problem with this narrow focus is that many people mistakenly carry this statement over to an assumption that DDG doesn't censor their search results. I suspect that DDG both knows and counts on this as an aspect of an undeserved reputation. DDG's search results aren't acceptable for anything even mildly controversial. I'll use them for image searches,…

A huge benefit of DDG for me is that I can use it in a private browser window and it just works without stupid popups getting in the way. In contrast Google is far less useable for a quick search. This alone is why I have DDG as default and I only drop back to Google when I'm struggling to find what I want. Most of the time DDG is fine for me.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#26

Post by jbm »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #10
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How is your attitude not equivalent to "I can't trust myself to see things I disagree with, I am so weak-willed that there is the horrific danger that I will start believing them"? There are reasons someone might want to find those links, even if they disagree with them. When Google hides them from you without your consent or ability to opt out, they're treating you as if you were a child. Or perhaps more like livest…

> I am so weak-willed that there is the horrific danger that I will start believing them

That's what "Manufacturing Consent" isn't it? That entire concept seems sound and passes the smell test. People see things repeatedly from authoritive-sounding people and they believe it (in the case of the book, by governments and their catspaws).

There is no reason a search and social bubble wouldn't wind up with a similar outcome.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#27

Post by hablog »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #10
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How is your attitude not equivalent to "I can't trust myself to see things I disagree with, I am so weak-willed that there is the horrific danger that I will start believing them"? There are reasons someone might want to find those links, even if they disagree with them. When Google hides them from you without your consent or ability to opt out, they're treating you as if you were a child. Or perhaps more like livest…

> I can't trust myself to see things I disagree with, I am so weak-willed...

The thing is, this likely is true for him. Most people are not equipped to deal with the onslaught of aggressive memes from the internet. Unfortunately, this is an unsolved social problem, and "export my memetic censorship reflex to MEGACORP" is a pretty bad way of doing things.

I think a likely way of solving this problem (protecting not-especially-high-mental-horsepower people from getting BTFO by the internet, contracting transmissible psychological diseases and so on) is that religious organizations will start offering (voluntary, in first world countries) censorship services to their members. Your DNS queries or whatever will go through the Vatican/Synod/whatever central DNS server, which will prevent you from looking at porn sites. This would probably be a very socially positive outcome for the bottom 90-something percent of people on the "strength of memetic immune system" distribution.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#28

Post by ziziyO »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #10
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How is your attitude not equivalent to "I can't trust myself to see things I disagree with, I am so weak-willed that there is the horrific danger that I will start believing them"? There are reasons someone might want to find those links, even if they disagree with them. When Google hides them from you without your consent or ability to opt out, they're treating you as if you were a child. Or perhaps more like livest…

Humans really are that simple. A lie, when repeated enough, can become truth.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#29

Post by gjsman-1000 »

ummonk wrote: post #17
nomel wrote: post #2

I was able to convince my wife to switch for anything remotely "controversial", when, during the pandemic, we caught the relatively "real time" disappearance of several "against the grain" articles about covid [1]. By disappeared, I mean top results for the rough concept one day to not being able to find it, even with the exact title and text, the next. I want a search engine, more than a curated guide. [1] https://w…

It was crazy to see suggestions to wear masks or claims that covid was airborne getting "fact-checked" by the media only to reverse their position months later after WHO put out new statements. In particular, the phrase "no credible evidence" was wildly thrown around without mentioning whether there were any credible high-powered studies that had even attempted to find evidence of the phenomenon.

The WHO has a lot of blame itself for misinformation. And, I personally believe, a lot of conspiracy theories definitely caught fire from their mistakes.

https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898?lang=en

Also, as you can see in the replies, a lot of people called BS at the time, but who were they to question the official WHO line? Yes, the WHO later came around and came up with 6 feet instead of 1 meter, but those who called BS on the WHO's statement may have saved their lives.

Post reply on HN