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

41–50 of 252 posts

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#41

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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,…

> DDG's penchant for censorship harms the credibility of their assertion that they do not track.

DDG is limited to Bing now that Yandex was cancelled. All the censorship comes from Microsoft not DDG.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#42

Post by anamexis »

bakugo wrote: post #34
anamexis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Calling censorship "moderation" doesn't make it not censorship.

Ok. Agreeing with some censorship does not mean you must agree with all censorship.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#43

Post by ssalka »

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,…

Another benefit is that it keeps getting increasingly better compared to Google – not because DDG is doing anything particularly innovative, but because Google search keeps getting worse and worse.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#44

Post by Jcampuzano2 »

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]

I can see both sides to the argument.

I personally don't mind deletion of antivax stuff because I'm not antivax. But I can see the point of view those mentioning what happens when there is deletion/censorship of things in the future that I could have interest in.

We also do know that there exists "some" subset of things that were mentioned that seemed antivax on the surface but did actually turn out to be true or at least somewhat true. But these were usually not outright false claims, but informed speculations or very niche.

It was such a dividing topic that any form of skepticism however small was seen as an attack. This as someone who is vaxed and has gotten every booster available.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#46

Post by ghastmaster »

I switch to DDG from brave when I want to do an image search. Brave forwards image searches to either Google or Bing based on your choice. Even if DDG is getting their images from those sources, I still prefer the DDG image search UI.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#47

Post by drexlspivey »

mywittyname wrote: post #40
cyberbanjo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone wants a censor on their side, but they rarely are

In this particular case, it's about wanting information from the people actually researching a subject vs people making stuff for political or business purposes. Even if researchers are wrong initially, because of lack of data, they are still acting in good faith. Which you can't say for people who are spreading made up or poorly sourced information to make a buck. Society generally frowns upon allowing people to bla…

In this particular case, what product was sold by antivaxxers or how did they make money?

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#48

Post by lolinder »

Georgelemental wrote: post #8
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…

DDG may not be the best if you want to avoid political meddling. I switched to Brave after https://web.archive.org/web/20220831110219/https://twitter.c...

I get so tired of seeing yegg raked over the coals for this one.

A search engine by definition takes an editorial stance on things. They take in all of the internet and decide what to present to users. For a search engine to take no editorial position is to yield the floor to whoever can best game the system, and a propaganda machine like Russia's is absolutely capable of exploiting a search engine that doesn't proactively take measures to avoid being exploited.

That DDG wanted to avoid spreading Russian propaganda that argues against the very existence of the Ukrainian people isn't DDG meddling in politics, it's them steering clear of enabling genocide.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#49

Post by eykanal »

From that page: "To advertise on DuckDuckGo, visit Microsoft Advertising." Is DDG the #2 position or Microsoft? Kind of a notable difference there... if DDG is just an arm of Microsoft it rings a different tune.

Re: Advertise on DuckDuckGo Search

#50

Post by tracker1 »

mywittyname wrote: post #40
cyberbanjo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone wants a censor on their side, but they rarely are

In this particular case, it's about wanting information from the people actually researching a subject vs people making stuff for political or business purposes. Even if researchers are wrong initially, because of lack of data, they are still acting in good faith. Which you can't say for people who are spreading made up or poorly sourced information to make a buck. Society generally frowns upon allowing people to bla…

There were plenty of knowledgable scientists including those with specific familiarity that were censored because it didn't fit the media narrative at the time.
Post reply on HN