4 ms·
I could be incorrect in my assumption here so please let me know: I assume as a user of DDG that they aren't collecting data on me. However back when Google wa
by bussierem 5y ago
I could be incorrect in my assumption here so please let me know:
I assume as a user of DDG that they aren't collecting data on me. However back when Google was following their motto and young, they WERE still collecting data, weren't they?
If that's true (IF) then that would make this an unfair comparison. If DDG eventually erodes their morals and stops caring about privacy then I could just stop using them and they would have no historic data on me.
That aside though, what is your alternative? Yes they may in the future collect data but they certainly don't right now, so why not use them now while they don't rather than giving in and just using Google and accepting the surveillance?
- jjulius 5y ago>... why not use them now while they don't rather than giving in and just using Google and accepting the surveillance? That user sounds like they do use DDG but are cautious about how their business model may change in the future. They even think more people should be using it: >I argue that people should use DuckDuckGo. They're just advocating for awareness. If anything, their stance is what all of us who regularly use DDG should take, so that DDG is aware that their userbase would be likely to seek other alternatives should they change their ways. It keeps the pressure on them to "do right".
- stjohnswarts 5y agoI think that comparing DDG to a young google is an awful comparison and nigh on useless. DDG's reputation for privacy is they're selling point, and they know they would be found out quickly if they do surreptitious stuff because many eyes are on them and would love to nail them to the wall for reneging on the promise to keep searches private. The same logic applies so that they only use search related ads and not tracking/unique ID ads.