Yes, of course! They have little to lose compared to Google, which has _everything_ to lose. Lack of personalization is not a "feature" that DDG implemented. I

Yes, of course! They have little to lose compared to Google, which has _everything_ to lose. Lack of personalization is not a "feature" that DDG implemented. It is a lack of feature that they had to justify. The results that they were getting back from Yahoo! BOSS were not personalized, because Yahoo! (and now Bing,) would not trust a third-party with your ID, let alone your data. More importantly: Google is not selling your info to anyone. They use it to personalize their two main search engines: web and ads. Non-personalized ads means smaller revenue per ad, which in turn means more ads shown to you (which is what you get with DDG.) If you see Google ads on a third-party site, it is still Google that is directly serving those ads, not that site. Think of it this way: Here is a company that screams that Google is evil, but is happy to provide you with direct functionality ("!g") to visit Google, and oh, by the way, says nothing about their main partner, Bing, that also personalizes results. On the other hand, look at Google's behavior. They own duck.com through their acquisition of On2. What do they show when you visit duck.com ? "If you meant to visit the search engine DuckDuckGo, click here." Who does that ?! Brands build trust over many years, and in my (and most of the planet's) opinion, Google has earned mine. I could be more worried about ISPs logging URLs and selling them, but I'm not: I'm just not that interesting to track and I bet this is true for most of us. Maybe you're different.