3 ms·

So a matter of "don't trust them, but trust us"? I love DDG but this move seems a little creepy.

• guerrilla 5y ago
  Well, yes, but also you're only trusting one source instead of hundreds. That could have the downside of being a single point of failure, but probably not in practice since most of these things have massive amounts of information anyway, so there's no difference really besides reducing the number of them that has such information.
  • etiam 5y ago
    Seems to me the point is DDG does get to read your email, but all the tracker-using senders don't get to read you, since the tracker links would be scrubbed. Considering that all email traffic, contents and metadata, must be assumed to be monitored by a long line of more or less unsavory organizations, the tradeoff seems highly appealing to me. Under the circumstances, I'm happy to have one more organization, with excellent privacy stance, touching the contents of my list email, to deny those who actively try to spy on the what, when and where of what I do with the contents some of the opportunities. I guess I would be even happier scrubbing the trackers locally, but it seems like a high-variability cat-and-mouse game which could be pretty time-consuming to keep up with. Anyone aware of good DIY approaches to this?