[HN Gopher] DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from ... ___________________________________________________________________ DuckDuckGo Removes Pirate Sites and YouTube-DL from Its Search Results Author : TangerineDream Score : 385 points Date : 2022-04-15 19:22 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com) (TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com) | zodzedzi wrote: | 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. | | (Unfortunately NoScript has a limitation that you can't tell it | to "only TRUST javascript from example.com when I'm visiting | example.com"). | | But recently I started noticing some websites pulling javascript | from DDG (I don't remember which sites). | | So now I was wondering if DDG is getting into the tracking | business, since they're now having their javascripts load from | third party sites. | | Obviously this is anecdotal. But does anyone know if they are | indeed beginning to track? | stjohnswarts wrote: | Can you give us a list (or partial list) of sites that are | pulling scripts from duckduckgo? We can look at what they're | trying to do. | zodzedzi wrote: | I don't remember the sites; I'll try to find them again, and | will share here if I do. | | I remember seeing 3 sites within an hour, and deciding to | change the DDG setting to TEMP:TRUSTED afterwards. | mormegil wrote: | > (Unfortunately NoScript has a limitation that you can't tell | it to "only TRUST javascript from example.com when I'm visiting | example.com"). | | uMatrix (which I'm using in desktop Firefox) works exactly like | this. Plus it allows you to forbid/allow cookies, styles, | images, scripts, media, XHR, and iframes separately (for each | origin/domain). | [deleted] | zodzedzi wrote: | Ok I'll set it up sometime soon and give it a try. Thanks. | moehm wrote: | It's officially deprecated, but it still works. | | https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix | mrob wrote: | uBlock Origin in advanced mode also supports this (although | only scripts/frames/images, not the full uMatrix list). | zionic wrote: | > So now I was wondering if DDG is getting into the tracking | business | | Anecdotal of course, but I've been seeing more and more DDG | billboards. Those things aren't cheap, and my trust in them has | declined the more I see them advertise in the traditional | market. | brewdad wrote: | So where does one from here for everyday search? Google is | out. Bing has many of the same problems as Google. Startpage | blocks my VPN. Brave has always felt just a little "off" to | me, but maybe they're worth a try. Any others I've missed | that are worth looking into? | californical wrote: | I found Kagi[0] from somewhere on HN -- they make pretty | strong privacy claims, and are in a closed Beta stage right | now (you can give them your email, and they'll send you a | signup link within a week or two). They're planning to | charge a fixed rate for their search engine once they're | out of beta later this year. | | So far, it seems to be working really well for me! Results | are pretty excellent, and they support the DDG bang queries | (like `!g`) if you ever need it | | [0] https://kagi.com/ | wand3r wrote: | I second this. I use this full time now. A helpful HN | user told me about hyperweb for iOS which I use to make | Kagi my fulltime search engine on iOS. I have been VERY | happy | zodzedzi wrote: | If they stick with billboards for advertising, I personally | don't mind it. The issue to me is with tracking-based | advertising(/anything). | nonrandomstring wrote: | Suck Suck Blow has many redeeming features. One that's GOLD | imho; | | duckduckgogg42xjoc72x3sjasowoarfbgcmvfimaftt6twagswzczad.onion/ | | Running a hidden service is just so jolly gentlemanly. And it | works in the total absence of JavaScript and no matter what | utter lies I tell it about my randomised-per-request UA, and | cookie black holes. The obvious dark side is that it's closely | connected to Amazon. | z3c0 wrote: | > Unfortunately NoScript has a limitation that you can't tell | it to "only TRUST javascript from example.com when I'm visiting | example.com" | | I was under the impression that the custom option allowed this. | Am I misunderstanding the point of this option? | zodzedzi wrote: | I see "Custom" allowing you to choose which elements (frame, | fonts, etc.) to allow/block for the domain you're | configuring. | | But it doesn't offer the ability to say "apply these settings | to the domain example.com only when I'm visiting example.com, | and not when I'm visiting anotherexample.com which happens to | load JS from example.com". | z3c0 wrote: | Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, but when configuring the | domain in the custom settings, it does allow you to limit | the custom rules to only the site you're currently on, via | the "Enable these capabilities when top page matches" | dropdown. The default is "ANY SITE". | zodzedzi wrote: | I don't see any of these options in my plugin. I have | NoScript 10, and it looks like there is a NoScript 11 out | there; is that what you have? Maybe the feature was | introduced in 11 and I'm missing that update; checking | their changelog now... | | Edit: Correction - I do have NoScript 11; but don't see | those options. | z3c0 wrote: | I think you nailed it - I am indeed on 11. So good news! | It looks like NoScript is attentive to user needs. | | Edit: seeing your edit - the plot thickens. I'm on 11.4.4 | - any difference there? | zodzedzi wrote: | I had 11.2.11. | | And you're right, according to their changelog [1], they | added it in 11.3. | | >> v 11.3rc1 + Contextual policies (different | capabilities for the same origin, depending on the top- | level domain) configurable in the CUSTOM panel (thanks | NLnet for financial support) | | Woohoo! | | Thanks for following up and making me look, I now have a | better setup! | | [1] https://noscript.net/changelog/ | z3c0 wrote: | Glad I could help! I would hate for someone to miss out | on what has so far been my favorite feature of NoScript. | freedomben wrote: | I run uMatrix and have noticed some DDG showing up on other | sites as well. The sites in question appeared to be (at least | ostensibly) using it as a "can I reach the internet" sort of | check. If I blocked requests, it would say something to the | effect of "no connection detected." I wish I could remember | which sites they were, but I do remember seeing at least one | call to improving.duckduckgo.com from a 3rd party. | zodzedzi wrote: | Ok interesting. I'll try to find those sites I encountered | again and check it out with uMatrix. | mikece wrote: | I thought yt-dlp was recommended over youtube-dl these days. Any | chance DDG suppressing a less-preferred program? | [deleted] | anm89 wrote: | And I have removed duck duck go as my default browser | anm89 wrote: | *search engine | zekrioca wrote: | At least when querying "youtube-dl" it shows a small snippet to | the right where one can see the URL.. | thematrixturtle wrote: | I suspect this is largely due to DDG using Bing under the hood, | which has led to similar weirdness in the past, eg all major porn | sites disappearing from the results in Singapore (while Google | still showed them, mind you!). | | Still super disappointing though, and yet another reason why | trying to build a better search engine on top of someone else's | tech is a non-starter. | troyvit wrote: | I don't see how it's a non-starter. DDG is still a better | search engine than bing, if for no other reason than bangs. If | a censored search engine is the non-starter then every well- | known search engine is a non-starter. | | Maybe that's the real problem. There have been some recent | articles on HN about how "search is broken" and maybe this | article falls under that. Because what really gets me is that | there is plenty of legit content on "pirate sites" and blocking | them completely cuts off that content. | KMag wrote: | Having worked on Google's indexing system, I can't imagine how | much it would cost to write all of the crawling and indexing | code from scratch, and then run it on over the visible web. You | need to bootstrap somehow form an existing index if you want to | get anywhere in any reasonable time. | | If there's a market for alternative search engines out there, | AWS is already serving so much of the web that Amazon should | really provide crawling and basic indexing (for a fee, of | course) so it's done once for everyone, with Amazon Lambda | processing to allow search engines to customize their indexing. | I'm not sure if it would make them much money, but it makes | more sense to start up a search engine on AWS using Amazon's | crawl and basic indexing vs. using a search engine competitor's | crawl and indexing. | post-it wrote: | That's an insanely good idea. Since behind the scenes, Amazon | would know who owns each website that it's crawling, an AWS | search database would inherently be better-curated and more | trustworthy than anything an external crawler could put | together. Having your website on AWS would be crucial for | SEO. | | Awful for competition and whatnot. | KMag wrote: | Google and Bing can already crawl AWS sites just fine. As | long as Amazon doesn't provide any first-party search | engine, just providing search engine infrastructure, I | think it would be a net win for competition. | | As it stands, if you want to bootstrap your own search | engine, you need to base your search engine on either | Google or Bing's index, or perform the herculean task of | making your own crawler+indexer+search engine. If Amazon | can commoditize the back end, and let AWS-hosted search | engines provide differentiators late in the indexing | pipeline and on the search/serving side, I think we'd see | more niche search engines spring up. | perardi wrote: | You know what? Not that crazy of an idea. | | Amazon is a weirdly plausible competitor to Google. They have | a surprisingly robust ad business, and obviously AWS. | | https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/amazon-has-a-31-billion-a- | ye... | guyzero wrote: | Amazon ran A9.com as a search engine from 2004 to 2008. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A9.com#A9.com_search_portal | [deleted] | zanethomas wrote: | duckduckgone | einpoklum wrote: | Damn it! You beat me to this quip! Here's your damn +1. Grrr... | Kiro wrote: | Funny how the narrative on DDG has changed. I used to get | downvoted to oblivion for merely mentioning they used Bing under | the hood. Where are all the people that used to defend them so | vigorously? I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same people now | hating on them. | tibyat wrote: | qiskit wrote: | > I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same people now hating on | them. | | It seems like those people are still here defending ddg. They | are even attacking the blog. Weird. | | I use ddg as my default search and hope they are "privacy- | first" as they claim ( thought I have my doubts ). At this | point what other option is there? DDG search is noticably | censored since they rely on bing. It's obvious to anyone who | uses ddg regularly. Not sure why people here are making excuses | for ddg or pretending otherwise. What I would give to get the | google of old. | | It's sad looking back on what google used to be. All the | freedom and optimism of the 2000s is definitely gone. | seanw444 wrote: | Searx. Use Searx. Does your search engine of choice fail to | get results that the others pick up? Searx grabs _all_ of | them and compiles them together. Don 't miss another search | result! | | Also, proxying increases privacy. Also, it's open source and | self-hostable. | autoexec wrote: | It's amazing how much collateral damage is caused by our horrible | copyright laws. Mostly just so the MPA/RIAA can protect their | roles as gatekeepers of what we're allowed to see and hear. | | They can put enormous pressure on even the wealthiest and most | powerful companies to act as copyright police on their behalf. | Even Google is afraid of them. ISPs are forced to spend huge | amounts of time and money working for them. Now duckduckgo is | being strong armed into doing a bunch of free work for them too? | Maintaining lists of websites and domains to block and removing | links to even non-infringing material like youtube-dl just to | keep from being sued into the ground. | | I don't know what it'll take to rein in these guys, but I doubt | the courts will be the ones to do it. So far courts seem fine | with the idea that ISPs must permanently ban users from their | service over nothing but repeated unsubstantiated claims of | infringements which is an insane amount of power to give any | industry. | | Has any US politician ever run on a platform that includes | copyright reform? | rglullis wrote: | Lawrence Lessig | autoexec wrote: | I forgot about that! What a missed opportunity that was for | this country. He's exactly the sort of person we need to see | more of in politics. | mfer wrote: | It wasn't a missed opportunity. It was intentional. When he | became popular enough to get into the main debates the | Democrat party changed the rules to exclude him. | | It has led many to believe the party leaders don't want his | message out there | perardi wrote: | His campaign was much more about electoral reform than | copyright reform. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_2016_presiden | t... | | Which is broadly more important than copyright reform...and | broadly Americans don't seem to particularly care about | either of them all that much. | wussboy wrote: | Either would have been a win as far as I'm concerned. | zozbot234 wrote: | The case for copyright reform is much more clear-cut, | though. There's no plausible argument for the current | extent of copyright. | cogman10 wrote: | Both are pretty clear cut. | | Lessig, in particular, doesn't push for throwing out the | electoral college all together (to avoid system shock) | but rather to move towards proportional representation | the state level. | | That is, if your state has 10 electors and votes 60:40 | R:D, then you should allocate 6 electors for R and 40 | electors for D (rather than the current "winner take all" | method we do). This kills off gerrymandering as a tool | and makes it so that rather than appealing to swing | states, presidential candidate would actually have to | convince every state that they are the right choice | (because you don't just automatically get California. The | difference between a 55:45 cali and a 90:10 cali would | completely change how you campaign). | | Right now, Presidential candidates campaign to swing | states which is why you get weird things like presidents | talking solely about auto manufacturing or natural gas | extraction. | ausbah wrote: | scihub still shows up! | Vladimof wrote: | duckduckgo is kind of a joke, right? | NoImmatureAdHom wrote: | tbh I find it to be better than Google | Vladimof wrote: | tbh I find that all search engines are worst then Google was | 10 years ago (including Google) | thematrixturtle wrote: | Google pushed the envelope on how silly the name for a major | company can be, but DuckDuckGo is unlikely to ever hit mass | market success with that name. (Or, more importantly, the | current implementation.) | Vladimof wrote: | Google even gave duck.com to them, for free, I think | | I used duckduckgo on and off for probably a year ... might as | well use Bing if you like it | gigglesupstairs wrote: | It also owns www.duck.com. Not sure why they're still | sticking with DuckDuckGo. | barnabee wrote: | I don't need these results but I don't want to support this | behaviour/trend. | | Can anyone recommend a decent non-Google alternative. | scarygliders wrote: | Self-hosted SearXNG [0] | | Have your own search aggregator. | | [0] https://github.com/searxng/searxng | swethmandava wrote: | Check out https://you.com - lets you control your sources and | is privacy focussed | theandrewbailey wrote: | https://search.brave.com/ | nabeards wrote: | https://presearch.org | xigoi wrote: | Cryptocurrency? No, thanks. | lolinder wrote: | I've been using Kagi (https://kagi.com) for a few months and | it's been great. It's free while in beta but will be funded by | subscription fees afterward. | | The killer feature for me is the ability to up-rank and down- | rank sites in my personal results, which has been really | helpful for curating my tech-related searches. It allows me to | quickly find high-quality docs and eliminate the garbage. | tsuujin wrote: | I've been using Kagi as my primary browser for a while. My | only complaint about so far has nothing to do with Kagi | itself, I just wish I could set it as my primary search | engine in Safari. | freediver wrote: | You can, using (unofficial) Kagi for Safari extension. | | https://github.com/marcocebrian/kagisearchsafari | californical wrote: | I've set it as my primary search engine in Firefox, it | looks like there are instructions here about how to do the | same in safari: https://kagi.com/faq#default | kovalevski wrote: | so is ddg becoming a google ? | nmilo wrote: | Youtube-dl's site is yt-dl.org, not youtube-dl.org. Not surprised | the second one doesn't show up. Not sure why this blogspam is | here on HN either. | miloignis wrote: | yt-dl.org also seems not to appear: | https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ayt-dl.org&t=h_&ia=web | mdaniel wrote: | They are both bing suppressed, and as best I can tell are | synonymous $ dig +short youtube-dl.org. | 95.143.172.170 $ dig +short yt-dl.org. | 95.143.172.170 | | as for the blogspam, I'm sure everyone loves a good free speech | suppression story, but yeah, I wish HN offered downvotes on | submissions, too | syoc wrote: | I agree that was not a high quality post from TorrenFreak. I do | however also find the blogspam label to be unfair. TF has | pushed some important agendas over the years. | [deleted] | babypuncher wrote: | What is with this blogspam? | | YouTube-DL comes up just fine in search results | (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=youtube-dl&t=h_&ia=web). | | So does Pirate Bay | (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pirate+bay&t=h_&ia=web). | | The headline is outright false. | Flollop wrote: | the complaint in the article is around the serach engine's | "search within site" feature. | | Compare the following two: | | - | https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Athepiratebay.org&t=h_&ia=we... | | - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aycombinator.com&t=h_&ia=web | miloignis wrote: | The YouTube-DL website notably does _not_ come up in those | search results, it 's their GitHub page that does. The website | _does_ appear in the sidebar, because it pulls the sidebar data | from Wikipedia, and YouTube-DL 's Wikipedia page does come up. | | Note that if you do a google search | (https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube-dl) their website is | the first result. | gigglesupstairs wrote: | Both the website and the GitHub are top two results at my | end, in India. | miloignis wrote: | Interesting, mine are github, videohelp.com, and then | ottverse. I imagine that adds credence to the theory that | it's because of Bing's index removing them - maybe they use | a different index in India? | omgmajk wrote: | Their main website is not coming up here (sweden). Only the | github and some random fringe-sites, obvious scams and | readthedocs. | rejor121 wrote: | Well, not using DDg anymore, based on this and the comments down | below. Any recommendations? | | Maybe I'll give Lycos a try again xD | zionic wrote: | Just switched. Lets see how well brave search works out :) | dirtyv wrote: | I absolutely do not trust Brave. I tried their browser on my | iPhone for a few months. Always chose the most private | settings, don't save history, etc, so whenever I opened the app | there was no evidence it had even been used before. After one | particular update, I started the app and it opened up literally | dozens of tabs. Going through them I realized each tab was a | site I had visited in the past. Left a nasty review on the App | store that they never responded to, but they pushed out another | update almost immediately. Never again. I wouldn't be the least | bit surprised if years from now we find out the CIA was behind | Brave, like they were with Crypto AG | syshum wrote: | Brave was started by one of the Founders of Mozilla. | einpoklum wrote: | With respect to the Mozilla project (not so much to its | current state) - that does not mean much. Different people | were involved with it, and that was 25 years ago. | elforce002 wrote: | I switched when they decided to "curate" their search. | derevaunseraun wrote: | 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 | know when you use their products as intended you have no privacy, | and they don't try to hide this | | Edit: since DDG isn't open source like searx, how do we know | there is ANY truth to their marketing claims? | | Edit: Just for accuracy, the browser extensions are open source. | But as far as I know, the actual search engine isn't | | Edit: They made over 100 million in 2020. They clearly can (and | should) get an independent audit. It's shocking that they haven't | had a single audit. Even startpage has | colordrops wrote: | I used them nearly exclusively and recommended them to all my | friends. Once they started censoring content for political | reasons (Ukraine), that ended instantly. | moffkalast wrote: | I've always been a bit suspicious that despite having | seemingly no way of making revenue they manage to plaster | every corner of the internet with their paid ads. Like, | aren't they supposed to be a damn nonprofit or something? | Makes absolutely no sense. | mastazi wrote: | > censoring content for political reasons (Ukraine) | | what type of content did they censor? Do you have a link with | more info? | autoexec wrote: | Here's my take: | | Duckduckgo could easily be fully owned and operated by some | three letter agency. The NSA is already able to go onsite and | tap into the data that passes through corporations and they've | been doing exactly that for decades (see Room 641A) and they | can force corporations to keep silent about it using national | security letters. You should already assume that every US based | company is sending every scrap of data you give them to the | state. | | With no way to avoid your data from going to the state, what | are you left with? Worries over companies collecting, selling, | and using your data against you. That's a very real and | perfectly valid concern. | | We know that other search engines are doing those things, so | it's best not to use them if we can avoid it. Duckduckgo | _might_ be doing those things, which at least gives us a | chance, and even if they are it 'd be better to hand your data | over to several different companies than to give them all to | one source (like Google for example) because the more data | points any one company has on you the more control they have | over you. | | The worst case scenario would be that Duckduckgo is actually | secretly run by Google and the data being collecting from the | service is being used to help fill your dossier at Google but | if that's the case we're never going to know about it until a | whistleblower comes forward. | | As defeatist as this all sounds, I do believe in taking steps | to try to protect your privacy where you can, and I take many | steps that go far beyond what most people are willing to, but | we also have to accept the reality of the situation we have | where our laws and regulations do not protect us, and there is | very little we can do to protect ourselves but depend on others | to do what they say. That's why I use duckduckgo right now. not | because it's trustworthy (we can't know that), but because they | might be and that's (sadly) the best option we have at the | moment. | robbrown451 wrote: | > The worst case scenario would be that Duckduckgo is | actually secretly run by Google and the data being collecting | from the service is being used to help fill your dossier at | Google but if that's the case we're never going to know about | it until a whistleblower comes forward. | | The problem with this (and most other conspiratorial | thinking) is that of course a whistleblower is going to come | forward. | | Are you thinking that every employee of DuckDuckGo that knows | this (and many would have to), is paid so highly as to just | be quiet? That not one of them thinks, "hey, it would be fun | to be famous? It would be fun to expose this thing that is | suddenly going to make me a hero to millions? I could write a | book about it afterwards and make a ton of money..." | | And of course, Google would consider this in the first place. | Like "maybe this isn't a great idea, because secrets like | that are hard to keep? And maybe this could destroy our | company and that kind of risk isn't a great idea?" | GekkePrutser wrote: | DuckDuckGo was never meant to defeat spying by three-letter- | agencies. | | It's meant to protect us from tracking by advertisers. | | I don't think it makes any sense for a three-letter-agency to | run it. They can just NSL duckduckgo. They obey the law, as | this news item shows clearly. | GycDH6mb wrote: | I use DDG not for any concern over privacy, but because the | developer tools and results are so nice. !bangs are also | excellent and a huge timesaver | | `! mdn window.postMessage` .. so easy! | charcircuit wrote: | >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. | derevaunseraun wrote: | Could you clarify a bit? If you are logged in they store | almost everything, as is evidenced by Google takeout. | s3p wrote: | 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 think it's fine. I seriously do not understand | this. | | [1] https://github.com/duckduckgo/Android/issues/527 | girvo wrote: | Seems understandable to me. The explanation isn't just "copy | pasting" their privacy policy, either. You are | misrepresenting that thread and discussion. | | They're not a perfectly secure E2E encrypted zero-trust | system. They do require some measure of trust to use. This | has always been true. Don't use them if you don't trust that | they won't misuse your data. | derevaunseraun wrote: | This needs more visibility | jeffbee wrote: | You're right to be skeptical. They are essentially a client | state of Microsoft. Their results come from Bing and they are | hosted at Azure. Their privacy policy is just vague enough to | not rule out the possibility that Microsoft collects all the | stuff that DDG says they don't collect. | moffkalast wrote: | They sure sound like a Microsoft shell company. Because | nobody that's fully conscious will ever deliberately use Bing | they had to get creative and rebrand it with the usual | privacy and safety buzzword slogans that VPNs have perfected | in the last years. | throwaway82652 wrote: | >since DDG isn't open source like searx, how do we know there | is ANY truth to their marketing claims? | | You wouldn't know this even if it was open source. Open source | does nothing here. Looking at the source code will not tell you | their data retention policies or what is actually stored in | their databases. It will also not guarantee the source that you | see matches what is on their servers. | zagrebian wrote: | If Duck really collects user data, the moment this is found | out, they're dead, so for that reason alone, they probably | don't do it. The alternative is that they're betting everything | on nobody ever finding out which sounds crazy. | amelius wrote: | Perhaps they just keep the data in a vault just in case it | might become useful someday. Not many people need to know | about that. It can be just some box sitting at the point | where data enters the datacenter. | mastazi wrote: | > The alternative [..] sounds crazy | | I also think that it is unlikely but, let's not forget that | some unlikely things are regularly found to be true. | | In 2019 many thought that a global pandemic was unlikely, in | 2007 they thought that the a housing market crash was | unlikely, and so on. | | Personally, I think an independent audit would go a long way | in clearing up my doubts. | autoexec wrote: | > If Duck really collects user data, the moment this is found | out, they're dead | | It'd take a whistleblower for anyone to ever find out. What | are the odds of that happening? I don't think we can count on | someone who is being paid by a company to tell us about their | actions when their livelihood/gravy train depends on it and | they may be opening themselves up to legal problems for | coming forward. | | Not may people have the sort of integrity that folks like | Snowden, Klein, or Tice demonstrated and even those that do | can be pressured into keeping silent. | throwaway82652 wrote: | >It'd take a whistleblower for anyone to ever find out. | | No it won't. If you have a hypothesis you can just test it | out. Go submit some fake personal data and then see if it | shows up anywhere else. This trick is as old as using a | honeypot name or email address to test if a service signs | you up for junk mail. | throwawaybutwhy wrote: | A certain philosopher named Occam would suggest that the | simplest explanation for nobody finding out so far is that it | is three-letter agencies who might be the ultimate funders | and data buyers. | kwatsonafter wrote: | A certain philosopher named Occam would suggest that | appeals to conspiracy are much harder to substantiate than | appeals to incompetence or irresponsibility. | girvo wrote: | That's a pretty wild misapplication of Mr. Occams blade, | I'd think. There are much simpler explanations than that. | kevinh wrote: | Surely the simplest explanation would be that no one has | found out because they don't actually collect the data. | jstanley wrote: | Is that really the simplest explanation? | | Or is the simplest explanation that they're not lying and | they do what they say they do? | belter wrote: | Lately, almost every conspiracy theory has been proven true. | Or a more outrageous conspiracy theory is based on somewhat | less aggravating true facts, that are then misconstrued as a | more far fetched conspiracy:-) | SapporoChris wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories | | I am very interested in seeing you explain which ones have | been proven true and your citing of sources. | t0bia_s wrote: | There are so many issues with DDG, but nobody cares [1]. Idea | of having privacy focused search engine is strong. Then use | kagi or searX. | | [1] https://lemmy.ml/post/31321 | OrvalWintermute wrote: | I think we care, but sometimes DDG marketing is pretty | strong. | | That link you provided makes a good case for why DDG is not | the ally we need in the privacy war. | mastazi wrote: | Can you provide a TL;DR of the article? I'm a DDG user but | open to considering alternatives, never heard of kagi and | tried searX a long time ago. | | Currently, whenever DDG doesn't cut it, I add the !sp bang | and get Google results through StartPage. I know that SP is | owned by an advertising company but I still prefer them to | straight up Google. I tried using searX to get proxied | Google results but it required a few extra steps so I don't | usually go for it. | derevaunseraun wrote: | When I read about the founder and their privacy policy, I get | the impression that this is something they care about. | | At the same time, as far as I know there has been no | independent audit. Considering they made over 100 million in | 2020, they clearly have the finances to fund an independent | audit. It would also improve their reputation and clear up | some of the uncertainty about their collection of user data | in practice | | Even better (but more unlikely): they could open source the | search engine so we all can audit them. | 8bitsrule wrote: | Back when DDG first started, Gabe was asking for | ideas/opinions on features they had and might add, and I | talked to him on the phone for a few minutes. He seemed a | pleasant, sincere and honest person, and I've seen nothing | since to contradict that. Unlikely he's got that kind of | time any more ... here's a (2018?) interview (with Vivaldi, | they'd just made DDB their default search), listen for | yourself. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU9U26IWSYE] | | Suspicious of most of the rotten-meat smells on the net as | I am, I use DDG for everything. Compare the person(s) who | said "Don't be evil" (then...) to picking the name | DuckDuckGo. | arbitrandomuser wrote: | Open sourcing still won't solve the issue right . What they | open souce needn't be exactly the same they run on their | servers | avipars wrote: | I could be mistaken, but I believe that DDG sources data from | Bing and other large search engines... If their sources, such as | bing decide to remove a site, DDG gets affected by this as well. | pojzon wrote: | And here goes my reason to use DDG. Not because I pirate stuff, | but because I hate censorship. Its only a matter of time till | they implement the same filters as GGle. | | And in no way those filters stop dedicated ppl. | slig wrote: | So much for a Google alternative. | marcodiego wrote: | We need a p2p, independent, distributed, FLOSS search engine. | swayvil wrote: | Censoring my search results is the opposite of what I want in a | search engine. I will not be using ddg anymore. | cpach wrote: | I don't condone the actions of the Russian government; however: | | If you want better results from pirate sites, try Yandex.com. | Quite good for finding torrents. | draugadrotten wrote: | Russian government has always appreciated | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat so be careful what you | search for. | probably_wrong wrote: | I used to be able to find MP3s with Google, until one day it | simply stopped working. Then I moved to Baidu, which worked for | a while. I now use DDG to find movies, and yet looks like the | curtain may be closing on that one too. | | I fear it might only be a matter of time before Yandex stops | working too. | Jerry2 wrote: | > _Quite good for finding torrents._ | | That's because there's no DMCA law there and they're not taking | down thousands upon thousands of pages like Google is forced to | do every day. [1] | | [1] https://www.lumendatabase.org/ | codedokode wrote: | Yandex has an agreement with copyright holders and removes | sites with pirated content from results. But those are | Russian copyright holders and they mostly care about content | in Russian. | | Also Yandex removes sites that are banned in Russia, for | example BBC in Russian or Navalny's site. | seanw444 wrote: | I love how we have to preface our approval of something foreign | with "now I'm not a Nazi, but...' | tandav wrote: | Private search aggregation engine | | https://github.com/searx/searx | scarygliders wrote: | Exactly. | | Installed that recently and been using it for a few weeks - | it's great to self-host one's own search aggregator and I'm | very impressed with the results. | mfer wrote: | They show up in the search results for me | Apreche wrote: | 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. | babypuncher wrote: | I appreciate the sentiment but such an index would be 99.9% | spam, malware, and phishing. | userbinator wrote: | In the eyes of some of those in power, youtube-dl _is_ | "malware". | greggsy wrote: | Not to mention some incredibly horrible NSFL shit | hackernewds wrote: | Not to mention, Game of Thrones spoilers | paxys wrote: | This is the same line of thinking as "someone should set up an | alternate social network where users don't get banned". Except | that 99.9% of bans at Facebook, Twitter and the like are | completely justified, and so that's what the dominant content | on your new platform will be. | zarzavat wrote: | > Except that 99.9% of bans at Facebook, Twitter and the like | are completely justified | | Gonna need a big citation on that. One of my Facebook | accounts got banned because I accidentally left my VPN on. | Whilst I take responsibility for the terrible opsec, the fact | is people get banned all the time for doing things that are | anti- _Facebook_ rather than anti- _social_ (anti each | other). I would definitely use a social network that doesn't | feel like a police state. | rrdharan wrote: | Well for starters 99.9% of Facebook users don't use a VPN. | bufferoverflow wrote: | It will be a lot of spam with a bit of useful sites sprinkled | randomly. | jfengel wrote: | 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_. | theknocker wrote: | darkteflon wrote: | To be fair, "SEO-driven gibberish with back-links" is an apt | description of Google's actual results these days. | eimrine wrote: | Banned books are too dangerous for being find publicly, and | list of banned books is too useless thing. Better to create a | hidden torrent tracker for things nobody else wants to host. | rolph wrote: | a search using; | | anyterm :: torrent | | still returns alot of results for me sofar. | | and so does youtube-dl; | | top result is : | | github.com/ytdl-org | mdaniel wrote: | As 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 | maxk42 wrote: | They don't rely solely on Bing. If a popular site doesn't | appear, it's definitely a conscious decision on their part. | muhammadusman wrote: | 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. | daxuak wrote: | What if I want to search what sites have mentioned those | urls? | lolinder wrote: | That's still the wrong syntax. | miloignis wrote: | The point isn't that you can't reach the website by typing in | the search term, the point is that they've deindexed the | site. If you search for youtube-dl, neither youtube-dl.org | nor yt-dl.org come up in the results, as far as I can see. | | You can still access it _from_ the results via other sites, | like github and wikipedia (which even makes the real website | pop up in the info square, funnily enough), but the search | results themselves do not contain any links to the main | website. | ykonstant wrote: | Absolutely! Why on earth would you test a dumb way of doing | things on a user-facing service?! _slams hand on desk_ | Irrelevant! | srvmshr wrote: | 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. | guyzero wrote: | DDG does run ads just like Bing and Google, so it's just a way | for Bing to get more search ad inventory out there. | | Once upon a time there were other sites that did the same thing | with Google, but eventually Google decided they didn't need | third parties to drive search traffic. | HigherPlain wrote: | DDG is Bing, they use its API to get the search results. They | augment it with other sources to provide the "value added" | part, but that's a tiny part. DDG doesn't want you to know that | it is Bing, but Bing is what it is. | calibas wrote: | 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". | cato_the_elder wrote: | > If it is just Bing under the hood, how does it exist as | business entity. | | They provide an alternative branding, targeted at "privacy- | aware" users and hipsters. | marpstar wrote: | They aggregate from "over 400 sources" and run their own | crawler: https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help- | pages/results/so... | bduerst wrote: | Do they list their "sources"? | | It reads like they are saying a website = source, and the | hyperlink for the sources is dead. | cato_the_elder wrote: | That's just their corporate propaganda. For the most part, | it's Bing with some additional features. | | Their crawler (DuckDuckBot) doesn't have much of an impact on | the search results, it's mainly used to provide instant | answers. [1] | | [1]: https://seirdy.one/2021/03/10/search-engines-with-own- | indexe... | etataetaet wrote: | To be fair the instant answers are usually quite good! | aunty_helen wrote: | https://duckduckgo.com/traffic | | Have a look at a 50 day average and you can see their mistakes | come to light. I've shifted off them recently. | | I used to be DDG for everything, then it became anything non-work | related, then on phone with FF focus, now nothing. | | VPN and clearing cookies after browser close except for a few | certain sites has replaced them. | [deleted] | twoxproblematic wrote: | jdright wrote: | Ok, this is the start of the end for ddg, it was good while it | lasted. | eimrine wrote: | Who really needs a search engine nowadays? The google or ddg or | whatever is just a search aggregator for making no need to open | Wikipedia for searching who is Franko then open weather.com for | figuring out the weather next weekend then open SO for quitting | vim and so on. I can not remember when I really searched | something general last time which is impossible to find via | single-site search. And of course free porn videos and other | pirated stuff and cool-hacker-utils is never been searched using | government-friendly search businesses. | drexlspivey wrote: | > Who really needs a search engine nowadays? | | Apparently a lot of people since google processes 6B searches | every day? | thematrixturtle wrote: | I have no idea what the actual number is, but that sounds | low. The average HNer probably hits three digits every day | easily. | eimrine wrote: | 6B showings of ad-loaded webpage does not mean 6B successful | results shown. And my claim is that most of successful google | searches is just a wrong choice of a search engine. | jjulius wrote: | It's cool that you've had enough experience to just know where | everything that _you_ need is. Not everybody has the same | experience with finding things on the internet as you, nor is | the average internet user anywhere near as technically-minded | as you. | teekert wrote: | Hmm this will affect me, I always type tpb in ddg to go there. | I'm also happy my provider is small and freedom loving so it | isn't blocked (neither is RT for that matter). | kingcharles wrote: | What about archive.org? Will they delist that too? That | definitely contains a lot of copyright-infringing data. Where | will this end? | | Pirate Bay actually contains a lot of non-infringing items too. | | Who watches the watchers? | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | > Pirate Bay actually contains a lot of non-infringing items | too. | | Wait, what have they got? _Actual_ Linux ISOs? | robbedpeter wrote: | And public domain content, and content licensed for free | distribution, and abandoned software. The good stuff is there | too, but the legit free stuff isn't all bad. | JohnWhigham wrote: | What is going on with this company in the past several months? | Completely destroying any goodwill they had | Chalbroth wrote: | DDG sucks in many ways. Besides the engine performing quite | poorly, it also relies on third parties and so will return | filtered results they may not even control. They also never | supported IPv6 and are hosted at Microsoft or Amazon. | | IMO, there is no credible search engine today. | QuikAccount wrote: | > are hosted at Microsoft or Amazon | | I agree with most of what you are saying but this is silly. I | get "Microsoft and Amazon bad" but basically saying "host your | own infrastructure worldwide and index your own corpus or you | are a bad actor is rather inane. | walrus01 wrote: | isn't duckduckgo just a skin on top of bing? | bduerst wrote: | They claim to have results from over "400 sources" but then | don't list them. | HigherPlain wrote: | It's Bing. | [deleted] | NeonOverflow wrote: | AdmiralAsshat wrote: | I've started hearing ads for DuckDuckGo on NPR, of all places. | Could be completely coincidental, but I find the timing | suspicious. | | Do you think they're gearing up for an IPO? | derekbaker783 wrote: | I think they've advertised there for a while. | ronsor wrote: | I've seen DuckDuckGo ads on network TV. | vbezhenar wrote: | I ditched DDG after it started to "downrank Russian | disinformation". Thanks, I'll decide for myself where real | disinformation belongs to. It became just another tool of western | propaganda. I'm not sure if Google does that, but at least they | don't paint themselves as good guys anymore. | TheWill wrote: | Quit using DDG when they decided to start censoring stuff. Been | using brave search ever since, it's actually pretty good. | funshed wrote: | Have they? They whitelabled MSN/Bing search. It's probably | Microsoft. | [deleted] | ravenstine wrote: | I'm just waiting for the day they announce an NFT or a "trusted | partners" program with establishment media entities. Come on, | DDG, you've come this far, so truly jump the shark for our | amusement. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-15 23:00 UTC)