6 ms·

>DDG uses Google's and other search engines' data. DDG does not do their own crawling. >Please do a quick search here on HN and read up on all the previous con

>DDG uses Google's and other search engines' data. DDG does not do their own crawling. >Please do a quick search here on HN and read up on all the previous conversations about privacy and security implications of that before selling the narrative that DDG is somehow more awesome than more established search engines. I'm not sure I understand your argument. What are the privacy and security implications? If you submit a query and DDG turns around and gathers the results elsewhere, those other sources would have no idea it was you submitting the query; all they see is a request from DDG. Sounds like a better deal than directly exposing yourself to the sources you mention.

soheil 5y ago
Is this true? Even if you’re not exposed to those sources you’re exposed to DDG instead, so are you saying they have somehow more moral grounds to stand on when it comes to not sharing user data with others given that they see no problem with taking Google data and semi-packaging it as their own in the first place?
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >so are you saying they have somehow more moral grounds to stand on when it comes to not sharing user data with others given that they see no problem with taking Google data and semi-packaging it as their own in the first place? That isn't at all what I said nor implied. The gist of my comment was DDG is the lesser evil of all parties involved. Your statement: > DDG uses Google's and other search engines' data. DDG does not do their own crawling. Please do a quick search here on HN and read up on all the previous conversations about privacy and security implications of that [...] (emphasis mine) You draw a connection between the potential third parties involved and the adverse affect to the individual's privacy and security stemming directly from their involvement. I was outlining that, if DDG was sending the request to those parties -- not the individual making the query -- the other parties wouldn't be aware of the individual unless DDG explicitly tells them (which I don't believe they do).
- infamia 5y ago
  > if you’re not exposed to those sources you’re exposed to DDG instead, so are you saying they have somehow more moral grounds to stand on when it comes to not sharing user data with others given that they see no problem with taking Google data and semi-packaging it as their own in the first place? It's all about aligning your goals with the interests of the company. DuckDuckGo has built their business around being a privacy-focused search company. It is not in their interest to ruin that brand (and their company). Google is built on showing you ads and giving you free stuff in return (which requires they collect a lot of information). So yes, I think it's better (and quite natural) to trust DuckDuckGo a lot more than Google when it comes to privacy.

soheil 5y ago

Is this true? Even if you’re not exposed to those sources you’re exposed to DDG instead, so are you saying they have somehow more moral grounds to stand on when it comes to not sharing user data with others given that they see no problem with taking Google data and semi-packaging it as their own in the first place?

Nicksil 5y ago
>so are you saying they have somehow more moral grounds to stand on when it comes to not sharing user data with others given that they see no problem with taking Google data and semi-packaging it as their own in the first place? That isn't at all what I said nor implied. The gist of my comment was DDG is the lesser evil of all parties involved. Your statement: > DDG uses Google's and other search engines' data. DDG does not do their own crawling. Please do a quick search here on HN and read up on all the previous conversations about privacy and security implications of that [...] (emphasis mine) You draw a connection between the potential third parties involved and the adverse affect to the individual's privacy and security stemming directly from their involvement. I was outlining that, if DDG was sending the request to those parties -- not the individual making the query -- the other parties wouldn't be aware of the individual unless DDG explicitly tells them (which I don't believe they do).
infamia 5y ago
> if you’re not exposed to those sources you’re exposed to DDG instead, so are you saying they have somehow more moral grounds to stand on when it comes to not sharing user data with others given that they see no problem with taking Google data and semi-packaging it as their own in the first place? It's all about aligning your goals with the interests of the company. DuckDuckGo has built their business around being a privacy-focused search company. It is not in their interest to ruin that brand (and their company). Google is built on showing you ads and giving you free stuff in return (which requires they collect a lot of information). So yes, I think it's better (and quite natural) to trust DuckDuckGo a lot more than Google when it comes to privacy.