4 ms·

I'd say that the most sensible choice in the absence of any payment, considering FF sensibility and message, (i.e. according to me) DDG would be the most sensib

I'd say that the most sensible choice in the absence of any payment, considering FF sensibility and message, (i.e. according to me) DDG would be the most sensible default. (edit : clarify)

dymk 9y ago
When has any proof ever been given that they’re any more privacy conscious than any other search engine?
- Sylos 9y ago
  Their privacy statement is pretty clear. That's a legally binding document and lying in that will get you pretty high fines even in the US.
  - trendia 9y ago
    Netflix was sued because they kept rental history on former customers. Netflix revenue: $8,800,000,000 Lawsuit amount: $9,000,000 (or approx 0.1%) Lawyers received: $2,100,000 Plaintiffs received: $30,000 [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/class-action-lawsuit-settlement-forces-netflix-privacy-changes/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/class-action-law...
    - Oishikatta 9y ago
      You can't compare to revenue, that makes no sense. Netflix's global net income in 2012 was apparently $17 million. A $9 million fine is then over half of their annual income. [0] https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/121853053/Netflix-4Q-2012-Investor-Letter?skip_app_promo=true https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/121853053/Netflix-4Q-...
- millstone 9y ago
  What sort of proof could they offer that would satisfy you? Honest question.
- Finnucane 9y ago
  They're not an ad agency, which is a good enough answer for me.
  - dymk 9y ago
    An ad agency has a big incentive to keep your user data to themselves, as that's their most valuable and competitive resource. Google and Facebook have a huge incentive to not leak information about their users; why would someone pay them if that data was available elsewhere? DDG has every incentive to sell user data, given that they don't have their own ad network with which to target. How else would they make money off of it?
    - Finnucane 9y ago
      https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates
      - dymk 9y ago
        My point is that "they're not an ad agency" is not an argument that a company has some incentive to protect user privacy, and "they're an ad agency" is not an argument that a company is incentivized to sell user data.
        Finnucane 9y ago
        Yeah, okay, DDG _might_ be lying about their privacy promises. They _might_ be tracking us all ways to Sunday the way Google and Facebook do. They _might_ have some seekrit, back-door ad sales department that nobody knows about and somehow they've managed to keep secret. Which, of course, is a great method for making ad sales.
        Vinnl 9y ago
        What does incentivise them is that their entire marketing is based around the privacy messaging, and thus pretty much their entire userbase considers that their primary selling point. If it ever came out that they were handing over that data to whomever, they'd be gone in an instant.

I'd say that the most sensible choice in the absence of any payment, considering FF sensibility and message, (i.e. according to me) DDG would be the most sensible default. (edit : clarify)

dymk 9y ago

When has any proof ever been given that they’re any more privacy conscious than any other search engine?

Sylos 9y ago
Their privacy statement is pretty clear. That's a legally binding document and lying in that will get you pretty high fines even in the US.
- trendia 9y ago
  Netflix was sued because they kept rental history on former customers. Netflix revenue: $8,800,000,000 Lawsuit amount: $9,000,000 (or approx 0.1%) Lawyers received: $2,100,000 Plaintiffs received: $30,000 [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/class-action-lawsuit-settlement-forces-netflix-privacy-changes/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/class-action-law...
  - Oishikatta 9y ago
    You can't compare to revenue, that makes no sense. Netflix's global net income in 2012 was apparently $17 million. A $9 million fine is then over half of their annual income. [0] https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/121853053/Netflix-4Q-2012-Investor-Letter?skip_app_promo=true https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/121853053/Netflix-4Q-...
millstone 9y ago
What sort of proof could they offer that would satisfy you? Honest question.
Finnucane 9y ago
They're not an ad agency, which is a good enough answer for me.
- dymk 9y ago
  An ad agency has a big incentive to keep your user data to themselves, as that's their most valuable and competitive resource. Google and Facebook have a huge incentive to not leak information about their users; why would someone pay them if that data was available elsewhere? DDG has every incentive to sell user data, given that they don't have their own ad network with which to target. How else would they make money off of it?
  - Finnucane 9y ago
    https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates
    - dymk 9y ago
      My point is that "they're not an ad agency" is not an argument that a company has some incentive to protect user privacy, and "they're an ad agency" is not an argument that a company is incentivized to sell user data.
      - Finnucane 9y ago
        Yeah, okay, DDG _might_ be lying about their privacy promises. They _might_ be tracking us all ways to Sunday the way Google and Facebook do. They _might_ have some seekrit, back-door ad sales department that nobody knows about and somehow they've managed to keep secret. Which, of course, is a great method for making ad sales.
      - Vinnl 9y ago
        What does incentivise them is that their entire marketing is based around the privacy messaging, and thus pretty much their entire userbase considers that their primary selling point. If it ever came out that they were handing over that data to whomever, they'd be gone in an instant.