3 ms·

That makes no sense. Literally all the people I know who use DDG use it because it's not Google or Amazon or Apple or Facebook or Microsoft etc. If one of these

by p4bl0 6y ago

That makes no sense. Literally all the people I know who use DDG use it because it's not Google or Amazon or Apple or Facebook or Microsoft etc. If one of these buys DDG, DDG will almost instantly lose most of its user base.

TomGullen 6y ago
They might not be worried about losing those people - would be able to grow it themselves quite easily.
berkes 6y ago
Going from "all the people you know" to "most of it's userbase" is rather anecdotal. Unless, off course, you know millions of people. I understand the sentiment. But Apple or Microsoft could buy them with the explicit goal -and promise- to run or own a privacy-friendly search engine. Rather than just "something to fight Google with". Like with MSFT buying GitHub: I was/am one of those disgruntled users who left GH as paying customer (running to my own gitea, mostly) but so far, Microsoft really seems to deliver on its promise to keep it a good option for Open Source. Such companies can do the same when they buy a privacy-friendly search engine: promise, and then deliver on that promise, to keep it privacy-focused, -friendly and so on. Especially since there are several competitors around the corner that would take over the DDG userbase if the aquiring company slips up. Qwant, Startpage, Ecosia just to name a few.
- fsflover 6y ago
  > Microsoft > with the explicit goal -and promise- I don't know where to begin...
  - berkes 6y ago
    I see your point, and my gut agrees. Which is also why I rage-quitted Github the moment they were bought. I still don't trust them to Be Good or even to Not Be a Total POS at some point in future. But, so far, with Github, they have delivered on their promise, they have reacted to consumer pressure over e.g. the ICE (some US-border-patrol policital thing, I don't recall the exact name, just the uproar) and some other matters. They have Been Good. Unexpected, for me, but so far, the proof is in the pudding and it seems good.

by p4bl0 6y ago

TomGullen 6y ago

They might not be worried about losing those people - would be able to grow it themselves quite easily.

berkes 6y ago

Going from "all the people you know" to "most of it's userbase" is rather anecdotal. Unless, off course, you know millions of people. I understand the sentiment. But Apple or Microsoft could buy them with the explicit goal -and promise- to run or own a privacy-friendly search engine. Rather than just "something to fight Google with". Like with MSFT buying GitHub: I was/am one of those disgruntled users who left GH as paying customer (running to my own gitea, mostly) but so far, Microsoft really seems to deliver on its promise to keep it a good option for Open Source. Such companies can do the same when they buy a privacy-friendly search engine: promise, and then deliver on that promise, to keep it privacy-focused, -friendly and so on. Especially since there are several competitors around the corner that would take over the DDG userbase if the aquiring company slips up. Qwant, Startpage, Ecosia just to name a few.

fsflover 6y ago
> Microsoft > with the explicit goal -and promise- I don't know where to begin...
- berkes 6y ago
  I see your point, and my gut agrees. Which is also why I rage-quitted Github the moment they were bought. I still don't trust them to Be Good or even to Not Be a Total POS at some point in future. But, so far, with Github, they have delivered on their promise, they have reacted to consumer pressure over e.g. the ICE (some US-border-patrol policital thing, I don't recall the exact name, just the uproar) and some other matters. They have Been Good. Unexpected, for me, but so far, the proof is in the pudding and it seems good.