3 ms·

I switched to Neeva[1] a few weeks ago and haven't felt the need to use google since. It's not 2005 Google quality, but it's got a good UI and dark theme, and t

I switched to Neeva[1] a few weeks ago and haven't felt the need to use google since. It's not 2005 Google quality, but it's got a good UI and dark theme, and the results are pretty excellent (ad free, private). [1] https://neeva.com/about https://neeva.com/about

pureliquidhw 5y ago
Lots of questionable people behind that. Head of monetization at YouTube? Head of ads at Google? Keep scrolling and their investors aren't much better. Why won't they pivot to selling info as soon as they have market share? If you're concerned about ads and privacy, your info and eyes are probably worth more than an average click elsewhere. Maybe I've just gotten cynical.
- washadjeffmad 5y ago
  I guess I'm wondering if you're already using Google services, does any of that matter? Which search you use isn't a life commitment. Search engines have been around for less than 30 years. I've used dozens in that time, and I plan to continue trying new ones, Neeva included. If they do something shitty, I'll bail.
  - pureliquidhw 5y ago
    It matters in principle, but probably not in practice. If it comes down to choosing who next to make rich off search, why reward those who've already benefited creating the modern status quo? And if these people were passionate about end user privacy and rights, their positions within Alphabet we're much better poised to make a difference than spinning up a new search engine. Maybe their experience makes them perfect to compete and their intentions are good. Search is too ripe with opportunity and too difficult to keep useful that a regression towards profit at all costs is mandatory. If tracking and targeted ads are a given, just give me the ability to blacklist seo spam, unwanted ads, and other low quality content. That's the killer app. Track away, just give me some control.
alangibson 5y ago
They've already taken a bunch of VC. There's a 100% chance of them breaking bad as soon as they've got a big enough user base that it's worth squeezing.

pureliquidhw 5y ago

Lots of questionable people behind that. Head of monetization at YouTube? Head of ads at Google? Keep scrolling and their investors aren't much better. Why won't they pivot to selling info as soon as they have market share? If you're concerned about ads and privacy, your info and eyes are probably worth more than an average click elsewhere. Maybe I've just gotten cynical.

washadjeffmad 5y ago
I guess I'm wondering if you're already using Google services, does any of that matter? Which search you use isn't a life commitment. Search engines have been around for less than 30 years. I've used dozens in that time, and I plan to continue trying new ones, Neeva included. If they do something shitty, I'll bail.
- pureliquidhw 5y ago
  It matters in principle, but probably not in practice. If it comes down to choosing who next to make rich off search, why reward those who've already benefited creating the modern status quo? And if these people were passionate about end user privacy and rights, their positions within Alphabet we're much better poised to make a difference than spinning up a new search engine. Maybe their experience makes them perfect to compete and their intentions are good. Search is too ripe with opportunity and too difficult to keep useful that a regression towards profit at all costs is mandatory. If tracking and targeted ads are a given, just give me the ability to blacklist seo spam, unwanted ads, and other low quality content. That's the killer app. Track away, just give me some control.

alangibson 5y ago

They've already taken a bunch of VC. There's a 100% chance of them breaking bad as soon as they've got a big enough user base that it's worth squeezing.