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

311–320 of 475 posts

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

#311

Post by JKCalhoun »

throwaway82652 wrote: post #261
rglullis wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to play ball with them or they will simply not be able to produce those things anymore. You say that like it's a bad thing. I wish it was that easy to get them to stop producing all that crap, but it seems that the easier it gets to pirate things, the more cultural garbage they produce.

To be clear here, you're saying that you want all writers, researchers, artists, architects, musicians, composers, filmmakers, actors, podcasters, to just stop doing things? Would it make you happy if I just threw out my painting supplies and my clarinet?

Jumping in on your back and forth...

I believe there is a kind of artists dilemma where, one way to put it, we differentiate "commercial art" from "fine art". We put a higher value on the starving artist whose passion for creativity is so consuming, and vision so singular that they will follow their muse irregardless of any financial success.

I exaggerate to make clear the point.

Put another way, if there were no more blockbuster films, indie films would nonetheless still get made. Some people (maybe myself?) would be okay with that.

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

#312

Post by mda »

bduerst wrote: post #200
s3p wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think most DDG fans would be thoroughly surprised DDG ever popped the hood or tried to verify their privacy claims, which is why I don't think DDG ever will. Better to elude to a nebulous definition of privacy rather than give specifics. Even as a privately traded, for-profit company based in the U.S. with zero accountability for its claims, DDG doesn't even have that much IP to lose (as a Bing reskin) should it ev…

I always wondered the specifics of their deal with Microsoft regarding the use of bing index. Guess we will never know.

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

#313

Post by autoexec »

throwaway82652 wrote: post #304
autoexec wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go submit some fake personal data and then see if it shows up anywhere else. this is not a valid test, for a whole lot of reasons. especially not in terms of internet search engines. One reason for this, is that the specific things you search aren't what's actually valuable. Companies use that data to make guesses about you. It's those guesses, not your specific search terms, that are used to profile you. So why no…

>this is not a valid test, for a whole lot of reasons. especially not in terms of internet search engines. Then come up with a better test. I'm sure you can think of something that answers those questions to a reasonable level of confidence and can be targeted at any data broker. This is literally what a lot of independent auditing actually is. The reality is, you can't go and work on the inside at every data broker…

As I said: "Better ways to test what DDG is doing behind the scenes might be things like get hired there in a central role. Have the government or an independent auditor review their data collection practices."

> The reality is, you can't go and work on the inside at every data broker and that defeats the purpose of an independent audit anyways. So you have to come up with something else.

It's true that it's unreasonable for people get a job at every company they have to work with. The real solution is regulation and oversight to protect our data from being collected, sold, and used against us. Experts all agree we need it and they've been saying so for a very very long time, but so far there's not been much effort from congress.

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

#314

Post by mda »

calibas wrote: post #152
srvmshr wrote: post #39

Serious Question: How is the DDG search structured? Is it a cosmetic skin over Bing, or is it aggregating from other sites like Yahoo, ecosia etc additionally? If it is just Bing under the hood, how does it exist as business entity. I am sure MS will take some action to consolidate their search share rather than seeing splintered.

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".

It is Bing, but they seem to use different ranking and filtering on the index.vIf you make complex queries it is quite obvious. Since they have zero transparency the details of their system and deal with bing is unclear.

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

#316

Post by thayne »

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…

They have a privacy policy, and if they don't follow it then they could be liable for it.

Their use of cookies is fairly easy to inspect, although that doesn't prove they aren't doing fingerprinting or ip tracking.

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

#317

Post by Brian_K_White »

What is an uncensored search engine then?

If I search for something, and the search engine does not tell me about things which ARE there, then that is a defective search engine.

It's fine to keep kids from getting ahold of any sharp objects but if I need a knife I need a knife and it's ridiculous for anyone else to decide to lie to me about the existence of knives.

We are doing the Chinese firewall to ourselves just a bit slower.

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

#318

Post by asojfdowgh »

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.…

ublock doesn't correctly show beacons and pings

beacons and pings fired upon activating a link, happen after the document change, so ublock associates them with the new document, even though they are initiated by the old document

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

#319

Post by Brian_K_White »

jfengel wrote: post #19
Apreche wrote: post #13

Someone should make a search engine that only indexes sites that Google and DuckDuckgo do not index. It would serve sort of the same purpose as like, lists of banned books.

You want a list of spam sites, phishing, malware, and SEO-driven gibberish with back-links? Yeah, I guess that would probably be useful for something. Academic research into just how awful people are, perhaps. And, of course, as a blackhole list. Just make sure you get a bulk discount on disk space. Such a list would be huge .

"You want a list of spam sites, phishing, malware, and SEO-driven gibberish with back-links?"

Yes, exactly, I want exactly whatever I search for, including that if that's what I search for.

If I search for something which exists, then I want the knowledge of that existence. The value judgement is no one else's business unless I search for "X but only where approved by any governments or companies with any political or financial interest in controlling what I know."

When it turns out that I would never choose to search for that, that is the proof that it's wrong to be doing it.

Post reply on HN