8 ms·

Good! One more reason for me to remain a DDG user. This is the behaviour of responsible and accountable adults. "Censoring" is a word very badly understood and

Good! One more reason for me to remain a DDG user. This is the behaviour of responsible and accountable adults. "Censoring" is a word very badly understood and prone to manipulation. There are a lot of circumstances where suppression of information/opinion is justified: protecting intellectual property and copyrights, blocking doxing, prevent haters from doing harm against others, protection of military secrets or people in danger, etc. In case someone hasn't noticed, there is a war going on in Europe. That is a circumstance where some of these cases apply. Also, freedom of speech is a principle applied on the relation of people with the state, an issue for public law. This is about a private enterprise and its relations with its users, subject to the regulation of private law. If this sounds just like "legalese" to you consider this: a newspaper has the right to select and editorialize the news it publishes, a bookseller has the right to choose what books to sell, a movie theatre or a movie producer also has rights to choose what to exhibit or produce. The same principle applies to what dang does here at HN. So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display?

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
Wow you have no intelligence whatsoever. You're basically advocating for one team's propaganda because you don't like the other teams. YOU are the problem.
eric_cc 5y ago
> So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display? They do have the right to participate in censorship. I don’t see anybody suggesting otherwise. Now we know that they can no longer be trusted to serve unbiased information. And now we can tag your account as “pro censorship”.
soundnote 5y ago
> Also, freedom of speech is a principle applied on the relation of people with the state, an issue for public law. This is about a private enterprise and its relations with its users, subject to the regulation of private law. Freedom of speech is a philosophical principle. Laws based on the philosophy have been written, but they are not the broader principle itself. The laws are just one instance of the principle. So when we criticize a private actor for going against freedom of speech, we are not saying that they break the law, or that they aren't allowed to do what they do. They plainly are. What we are saying is that we like the principle, and would like to see the private organization act so as to uphold the principle. This is especially true if they have advertised themselves as being pro the principle before but have backtracked since. A huge part of DDG's position before was to escape your results being shaped for you by the search provider. Now DDG is doing that on top of whatever Bing does. Maybe they're just complying with EU sanctions that demand suppressing RT and Sputnik, but I haven't really seen/checked other communications by them on the subject. EDIT: There's also the issue of determining what is factual and what is misinformation on a contested subject. Not easy, especially algorithmically, and something I'd rather do myself.
choward 5y ago
> In case someone hasn't noticed, there is a war going on in Europe. That is a circumstance where some of these cases apply. There's a saying: "Truth is the first casualty in war." The last thing I want during a war is censorship. Why should I magically start trusting the government and media now? > If this sounds just like "legalese" to you consider this: a newspaper has the right to select and editorialize the news it publishes, a bookseller has the right to choose what books to sell, a movie theatre or a movie producer also has rights to choose what to exhibit or produce. The same principle applies to what dang does here at HN. > > So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display? DuckDuckGo isn't a publisher. They are a search engine. And nobody is claiming that they don't have the right to do what they are doing. But by doing so they are just like the search engines everyone is trying to escape from. Sure, you might get privacy but who cares if the results are manipulated?
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > They are a search engine. Exactly. people go to search engines looking for information about things. If the search engine returns lies it's completely failed. > who cares if the results are manipulated? Not sure if you've noticed, but there's an entire industry built around manipulating search engine results. If the search engines don't fight back the only thing that will be left is corporate and government bullshit.
  - eric_cc 5y ago
    > If the search engine returns lies it's completely failed. How does a search engine know what is true?
  - kweingar 5y ago
    > If the search engine returns lies it's completely failed If I search for Time Cube, should a search engine refuse to show me a link to its webpage?
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      Maybe.
ricardo81 5y ago
I don't get the comparison with newspapers, maybe 40 years ago that was one of the limited ways of information discovery but we've had the web since then. People are free to discover the world's information and given the saturation of that information, differing points of view on it. However, with two dominant search engines (Google and Bing/DuckDuckGo/Yahoo) there is little diversity and so censorship has more impact, at least in web discovery and navigation.
- throwmeariver1 5y ago
  The internet is probably the biggest threat democracy has ever faced. I am ok with your romantic point of view of the informed masses but it’s a fallacy that in the end will cost us all our future. Because these people live and engage in extreme bubbles they get sucked into no matter if it’s left or right. I can only urge everyone who is for total tolerance to read K. Poppers the “Open Society and it’s Enemies” quite fitting from 1945.
  - ricardo81 5y ago
    Not quite sure I'm following. The "romantic point of view of the informed masses but it’s a fallacy" may apply to push techs like social media feeds more than search engines. There aren't that many universal truths when it comes to political situations. Asking a search engine what time of day it is in Tokyo, the GDP or Ghana or whatever is entirely more objective. I would say the onus is on people to understand sources of information and how to interpret them. If we're in a position where you're saying X% of the population will swallow what they search for, that makes search engines extremely dangerous, making the search engine an arbiter of truth is questionable. Does anyone at DDG have in depth knowledge of the political situation in Eastern Europe or what is truth and not? I would guess not, so they've no way of measuring it. It doesn't help that DDG's entire results are Bing's, who knows whether Bing is already pre-filtering them? I would guess DDG do not know that.
    - throwmeariver1 5y ago
hnuser847 5y ago
> In case someone hasn't noticed, there is a war going on in Europe. That is a circumstance where some of these cases apply. Indeed, there's a war going on and there's a tremendous amount of propaganda being circulated from both sides. The question is, why is DDG okay with amplifying Ukranian/NATO propaganda and not Russian propaganda? Is it because NATO is the "good" guy and Russia is the "bad" guy? When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, they did so on completely fabricated pretenses. The amount of death and destruction the US inflicted on the people of Iraq was horrifying. If DDG had existed back then, which side should they have taken? The side of the violent invaders (the "good" guys) or the side of the Iraqis (the "bad" guys)? > So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display? Of course they have the right to choose whatever they want, however this move seems antithetical to their original mission. If I wanted US-centric state-approved search results, I could just use Google.
- sdoering 5y ago
  I can't agree more. As a child I was brainwashed by US propaganda living on the western side of the Iron Curtain. The 'home of the brave and land of the free'. How lo g it took me to remove this naive Hollywood image of our friend the US from my mind. It took many long evenings of talking to actual people from the US while in university to learn more about the individual truths and lives instead of my rose tinted image. To me personally for many years now the US were the biggest danger to peace on this planet. Now - taking a page from their playbook their old arch enemy is rearing its head and using the frigging same arguments the US used back in Iraq to sow war on European soil. I am already only "allowed" (I know I can access other sources - it just isn't easy nor mainstream compatible) to watch western news. Russian propaganda is more or less banned from German viewers (with RT and others being banned). I am not allowed to try to glimpse the way Putin wants to be seen internally. And now - after Bing and Google - DDG follows suit and declares me too naive to be able to deal with Russian propaganda while still listing all the Western BS that should fill my head instead. Because in the end most 'news' currently is nothing but propaganda. Most news have an agenda. There is nearly no good signal. Nearly only noise. But few of the best sources to understand the mindset of the power elite in Russia I read in the last months were Russian sources read with the knowledge of the intended reason of publication. Aka reading it as the propaganda it is.
uejfiweun 5y ago
You're not wrong that they absolutely have the right to choose what results to display. Just like Twitter has the right to choose what content appears on their platform, and same with YouTube, etc. But my opposition is not from a legal standpoint, it is from a moral standpoint. I just think censorship and cancellation is wrong and immoral, even if it is legally allowed. I think it is immoral for some business executive to make sweeping decisions about what the commoners are / aren't allowed to see - it opens the door to far more dystopian control of our society.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Those that need legal force to adhere to the principle of freedom of expression simply do not support it. They often believe that they do, but in all relevant metric they certainly do not.
- 12ian34 5y ago
  If you think censorship is wrong then it follows that you would think that the Russian state is wrong given that they are going as far as denying this is even a war, and actively censoring those that call it one. Are you saying that you're still keen for them to be allowed to do so?
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    Yes, I say let their lies be defeated in the marketplace of free ideas. Basically everyone knows what's going on with Russia at this point. I don't think suddenly censoring their lies now is really gonna change anything.
    - mrguyorama 5y ago
      People keep saying these kinds of things, but Russians had pretty open access to western ideas, news, propaganda, and history, but that didn't stop a huge chunk of them from either tacitly or explicitly approving of this invasion of a sovereign nation. People believe what they want to believe, not what is correct. People keep saying "sunlight is the best disinfectant" (despite that not even being a reasonable statement in terms of disinfectants) but Russians have had access to "sunlight" for literally decades and this still happened. It's the same with how people believed we could save china by exporting capitalism, as if that would change things. The fact of the matter is that information, misinformation, and propaganda are game theoretic; a purposely bad actor that isn't ACTIVELY pushed back against will have huge success. Hell, it even happens here in the states. Both Fox News and MSNBC are perfectly legal to produce and view here, and yet no matter what you say on either station, roughly half of the country will believe it. That's a pretty terrible disinfectant if you ask me.
andrew_ 5y ago
> So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display? Oh they absolutely should, but they aren't free from consequence. And users will give them feedback on how they feel about it by voting with their feet, or searches, lack thereof in this case.
ohCh6zos 5y ago
The problem is that their product was advertised as not doing this. They are totally free to do this, but it makes their whole product unfit for purpose.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  It also makes you question if they actually value privacy.
mattwilsonn888 5y ago
> Comparing a search provider to a Journalism Outlet rather than a Librarian. Well if you're going to start there its no surprise you reached the conclusion you did.
- diego_moita 5y ago
  Librarians work for the state, therefore their acts are covered by public law that regulates censorship. DDG is a private company, therefore their acts are covered by private law that doesn't regulate censorship. I stated that before on my previous comment. I recommend you to improve your text comprehension skills, they're lacking.
  - mattwilsonn888 5y ago
    Nice try. DuckDuckGo literally sold itself and became successful based off the promise of behaving more like a library than a journalist. The only thing you've pointed out so far is the obvious - they don't have a legal obligation to fulfill the premises they were built on. Great, as long as the free market is aware.
pessimizer 5y ago
> "Censoring" is a word very badly understood and prone to manipulation. Search results are also prone to manipulation. I suppose you could manipulate the search results for the word "censoring" to something that people who want to censor would prefer. > prevent haters from doing harm against others
avgcorrection 5y ago
> Also, freedom of speech is a principle applied on the relation of people with the state, an issue for public law. This is about a private enterprise and its relations with its users, subject to the regulation of private law. Have you been living under a rock? This narrow, don’t-tread-on-me version of freedom-of-speech has been criticized in the Zeitgeist for a good while now; many people want the same principles to apply to private as well as state actors, equally. Most people talk about the concept of free speech. Not whatever federal law that deals with it in the US.
- snerbles 5y ago
  This narrow "Free Speech == First Amendment and nothing else" interpretation is quite common with those that advocate controlling the speech of others.
- diego_moita 5y ago
  > Have you been living under a rock? > has been criticized in the Zeitgeist Zeitgeist? As in Twitter/FB/Whatsapp and other social networks' blabbering? Then yes, I've been living under a rock. I proudly refuse to be part of that cacophony.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    Well, you are on this site, no? I’m referring to the HN Zeitgeist (in part).
president 5y ago
Would you be okay with media censoring content that opposed the Japanese internment because it was wartime during WW2?
Gareth321 5y ago
>Also, freedom of speech is a principle applied on the relation of people with the state, an issue for public law. This is about a private enterprise and its relations with its users, subject to the regulation of private law. This is absolutely not what the principle of free speech is. Private companies censoring information can be every bit as insidious and damaging to society, and of course falls under the umbrella of free speech. I think you are confusing free speech for the U.S. Constitution. This only applies to American speech, and only a narrow kind of speech. When someone on the internet describes or discusses "free speech," they are typically discussing something far broader. DDG has the right to provide poor search results. Users here are lamenting that fact.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Imagine thinking that excluding literal disinformation when it is not requested is a poor search result. The job of the search engine is to provide people the information they want. Not showing people lies when they want facts seems to be exactly the correct decision.
  - eric_cc 5y ago
    > excluding literal disinformation Who decides what is literal disinformation?
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    I don't think most people would have an issue if DDG and whoever else only removed disinformation and they never had any false positives. The problem is DDG is not perfect and will censor real information while calling it disinformation. Look at all the covid disinformation that turned out to be accurate or potentially accurate. The media and fact checkers have been completely awful at determining facts. Why do you think DDG will have any better luck?
  - Gareth321 5y ago
    First, define “disinformation.” Second, prove that only this disinformation is being suppressed. Lastly, prove that I don’t actually want to see some of this disinformation. I write articles and checking official Russian media is part of ensuring I’m writing factually. Your problem is thinking that I don’t have the right to see media I want to see.
goatcode 5y ago
> In case someone hasn't noticed, there is a war going on in Eurasia. I thought it was Eastasia.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

z3ncyberpunk 5y ago

Wow you have no intelligence whatsoever. You're basically advocating for one team's propaganda because you don't like the other teams. YOU are the problem.

eric_cc 5y ago

> So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display? They do have the right to participate in censorship. I don’t see anybody suggesting otherwise. Now we know that they can no longer be trusted to serve unbiased information. And now we can tag your account as “pro censorship”.

soundnote 5y ago

> Also, freedom of speech is a principle applied on the relation of people with the state, an issue for public law. This is about a private enterprise and its relations with its users, subject to the regulation of private law. Freedom of speech is a philosophical principle. Laws based on the philosophy have been written, but they are not the broader principle itself. The laws are just one instance of the principle. So when we criticize a private actor for going against freedom of speech, we are not saying that they break the law, or that they aren't allowed to do what they do. They plainly are. What we are saying is that we like the principle, and would like to see the private organization act so as to uphold the principle. This is especially true if they have advertised themselves as being pro the principle before but have backtracked since. A huge part of DDG's position before was to escape your results being shaped for you by the search provider. Now DDG is doing that on top of whatever Bing does. Maybe they're just complying with EU sanctions that demand suppressing RT and Sputnik, but I haven't really seen/checked other communications by them on the subject. EDIT: There's also the issue of determining what is factual and what is misinformation on a contested subject. Not easy, especially algorithmically, and something I'd rather do myself.

choward 5y ago

> In case someone hasn't noticed, there is a war going on in Europe. That is a circumstance where some of these cases apply. There's a saying: "Truth is the first casualty in war." The last thing I want during a war is censorship. Why should I magically start trusting the government and media now? > If this sounds just like "legalese" to you consider this: a newspaper has the right to select and editorialize the news it publishes, a bookseller has the right to choose what books to sell, a movie theatre or a movie producer also has rights to choose what to exhibit or produce. The same principle applies to what dang does here at HN. > > So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display? DuckDuckGo isn't a publisher. They are a search engine. And nobody is claiming that they don't have the right to do what they are doing. But by doing so they are just like the search engines everyone is trying to escape from. Sure, you might get privacy but who cares if the results are manipulated?

colinmhayes 5y ago
> They are a search engine. Exactly. people go to search engines looking for information about things. If the search engine returns lies it's completely failed. > who cares if the results are manipulated? Not sure if you've noticed, but there's an entire industry built around manipulating search engine results. If the search engines don't fight back the only thing that will be left is corporate and government bullshit.
- eric_cc 5y ago
  > If the search engine returns lies it's completely failed. How does a search engine know what is true?
- kweingar 5y ago
  > If the search engine returns lies it's completely failed If I search for Time Cube, should a search engine refuse to show me a link to its webpage?
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Maybe.

ricardo81 5y ago

I don't get the comparison with newspapers, maybe 40 years ago that was one of the limited ways of information discovery but we've had the web since then. People are free to discover the world's information and given the saturation of that information, differing points of view on it. However, with two dominant search engines (Google and Bing/DuckDuckGo/Yahoo) there is little diversity and so censorship has more impact, at least in web discovery and navigation.

throwmeariver1 5y ago
The internet is probably the biggest threat democracy has ever faced. I am ok with your romantic point of view of the informed masses but it’s a fallacy that in the end will cost us all our future. Because these people live and engage in extreme bubbles they get sucked into no matter if it’s left or right. I can only urge everyone who is for total tolerance to read K. Poppers the “Open Society and it’s Enemies” quite fitting from 1945.
- ricardo81 5y ago
  Not quite sure I'm following. The "romantic point of view of the informed masses but it’s a fallacy" may apply to push techs like social media feeds more than search engines. There aren't that many universal truths when it comes to political situations. Asking a search engine what time of day it is in Tokyo, the GDP or Ghana or whatever is entirely more objective. I would say the onus is on people to understand sources of information and how to interpret them. If we're in a position where you're saying X% of the population will swallow what they search for, that makes search engines extremely dangerous, making the search engine an arbiter of truth is questionable. Does anyone at DDG have in depth knowledge of the political situation in Eastern Europe or what is truth and not? I would guess not, so they've no way of measuring it. It doesn't help that DDG's entire results are Bing's, who knows whether Bing is already pre-filtering them? I would guess DDG do not know that.
  - throwmeariver1 5y ago

hnuser847 5y ago

> In case someone hasn't noticed, there is a war going on in Europe. That is a circumstance where some of these cases apply. Indeed, there's a war going on and there's a tremendous amount of propaganda being circulated from both sides. The question is, why is DDG okay with amplifying Ukranian/NATO propaganda and not Russian propaganda? Is it because NATO is the "good" guy and Russia is the "bad" guy? When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, they did so on completely fabricated pretenses. The amount of death and destruction the US inflicted on the people of Iraq was horrifying. If DDG had existed back then, which side should they have taken? The side of the violent invaders (the "good" guys) or the side of the Iraqis (the "bad" guys)? > So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display? Of course they have the right to choose whatever they want, however this move seems antithetical to their original mission. If I wanted US-centric state-approved search results, I could just use Google.

sdoering 5y ago
I can't agree more. As a child I was brainwashed by US propaganda living on the western side of the Iron Curtain. The 'home of the brave and land of the free'. How lo g it took me to remove this naive Hollywood image of our friend the US from my mind. It took many long evenings of talking to actual people from the US while in university to learn more about the individual truths and lives instead of my rose tinted image. To me personally for many years now the US were the biggest danger to peace on this planet. Now - taking a page from their playbook their old arch enemy is rearing its head and using the frigging same arguments the US used back in Iraq to sow war on European soil. I am already only "allowed" (I know I can access other sources - it just isn't easy nor mainstream compatible) to watch western news. Russian propaganda is more or less banned from German viewers (with RT and others being banned). I am not allowed to try to glimpse the way Putin wants to be seen internally. And now - after Bing and Google - DDG follows suit and declares me too naive to be able to deal with Russian propaganda while still listing all the Western BS that should fill my head instead. Because in the end most 'news' currently is nothing but propaganda. Most news have an agenda. There is nearly no good signal. Nearly only noise. But few of the best sources to understand the mindset of the power elite in Russia I read in the last months were Russian sources read with the knowledge of the intended reason of publication. Aka reading it as the propaganda it is.

uejfiweun 5y ago

You're not wrong that they absolutely have the right to choose what results to display. Just like Twitter has the right to choose what content appears on their platform, and same with YouTube, etc. But my opposition is not from a legal standpoint, it is from a moral standpoint. I just think censorship and cancellation is wrong and immoral, even if it is legally allowed. I think it is immoral for some business executive to make sweeping decisions about what the commoners are / aren't allowed to see - it opens the door to far more dystopian control of our society.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Those that need legal force to adhere to the principle of freedom of expression simply do not support it. They often believe that they do, but in all relevant metric they certainly do not.
12ian34 5y ago
If you think censorship is wrong then it follows that you would think that the Russian state is wrong given that they are going as far as denying this is even a war, and actively censoring those that call it one. Are you saying that you're still keen for them to be allowed to do so?
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  Yes, I say let their lies be defeated in the marketplace of free ideas. Basically everyone knows what's going on with Russia at this point. I don't think suddenly censoring their lies now is really gonna change anything.
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    People keep saying these kinds of things, but Russians had pretty open access to western ideas, news, propaganda, and history, but that didn't stop a huge chunk of them from either tacitly or explicitly approving of this invasion of a sovereign nation. People believe what they want to believe, not what is correct. People keep saying "sunlight is the best disinfectant" (despite that not even being a reasonable statement in terms of disinfectants) but Russians have had access to "sunlight" for literally decades and this still happened. It's the same with how people believed we could save china by exporting capitalism, as if that would change things. The fact of the matter is that information, misinformation, and propaganda are game theoretic; a purposely bad actor that isn't ACTIVELY pushed back against will have huge success. Hell, it even happens here in the states. Both Fox News and MSNBC are perfectly legal to produce and view here, and yet no matter what you say on either station, roughly half of the country will believe it. That's a pretty terrible disinfectant if you ask me.

andrew_ 5y ago

> So why shouldn't DDG have the right to choose what search results to display? Oh they absolutely should, but they aren't free from consequence. And users will give them feedback on how they feel about it by voting with their feet, or searches, lack thereof in this case.

ohCh6zos 5y ago

The problem is that their product was advertised as not doing this. They are totally free to do this, but it makes their whole product unfit for purpose.

encryptluks2 5y ago
It also makes you question if they actually value privacy.

mattwilsonn888 5y ago

> Comparing a search provider to a Journalism Outlet rather than a Librarian. Well if you're going to start there its no surprise you reached the conclusion you did.

diego_moita 5y ago
Librarians work for the state, therefore their acts are covered by public law that regulates censorship. DDG is a private company, therefore their acts are covered by private law that doesn't regulate censorship. I stated that before on my previous comment. I recommend you to improve your text comprehension skills, they're lacking.
- mattwilsonn888 5y ago
  Nice try. DuckDuckGo literally sold itself and became successful based off the promise of behaving more like a library than a journalist. The only thing you've pointed out so far is the obvious - they don't have a legal obligation to fulfill the premises they were built on. Great, as long as the free market is aware.

pessimizer 5y ago

> "Censoring" is a word very badly understood and prone to manipulation. Search results are also prone to manipulation. I suppose you could manipulate the search results for the word "censoring" to something that people who want to censor would prefer. > prevent haters from doing harm against others

avgcorrection 5y ago

> Also, freedom of speech is a principle applied on the relation of people with the state, an issue for public law. This is about a private enterprise and its relations with its users, subject to the regulation of private law. Have you been living under a rock? This narrow, don’t-tread-on-me version of freedom-of-speech has been criticized in the Zeitgeist for a good while now; many people want the same principles to apply to private as well as state actors, equally. Most people talk about the concept of free speech. Not whatever federal law that deals with it in the US.

snerbles 5y ago
This narrow "Free Speech == First Amendment and nothing else" interpretation is quite common with those that advocate controlling the speech of others.
diego_moita 5y ago
> Have you been living under a rock? > has been criticized in the Zeitgeist Zeitgeist? As in Twitter/FB/Whatsapp and other social networks' blabbering? Then yes, I've been living under a rock. I proudly refuse to be part of that cacophony.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  Well, you are on this site, no? I’m referring to the HN Zeitgeist (in part).

president 5y ago

Would you be okay with media censoring content that opposed the Japanese internment because it was wartime during WW2?

Gareth321 5y ago

>Also, freedom of speech is a principle applied on the relation of people with the state, an issue for public law. This is about a private enterprise and its relations with its users, subject to the regulation of private law. This is absolutely not what the principle of free speech is. Private companies censoring information can be every bit as insidious and damaging to society, and of course falls under the umbrella of free speech. I think you are confusing free speech for the U.S. Constitution. This only applies to American speech, and only a narrow kind of speech. When someone on the internet describes or discusses "free speech," they are typically discussing something far broader. DDG has the right to provide poor search results. Users here are lamenting that fact.

colinmhayes 5y ago
Imagine thinking that excluding literal disinformation when it is not requested is a poor search result. The job of the search engine is to provide people the information they want. Not showing people lies when they want facts seems to be exactly the correct decision.
- eric_cc 5y ago
  > excluding literal disinformation Who decides what is literal disinformation?
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I don't think most people would have an issue if DDG and whoever else only removed disinformation and they never had any false positives. The problem is DDG is not perfect and will censor real information while calling it disinformation. Look at all the covid disinformation that turned out to be accurate or potentially accurate. The media and fact checkers have been completely awful at determining facts. Why do you think DDG will have any better luck?
- Gareth321 5y ago
  First, define “disinformation.” Second, prove that only this disinformation is being suppressed. Lastly, prove that I don’t actually want to see some of this disinformation. I write articles and checking official Russian media is part of ensuring I’m writing factually. Your problem is thinking that I don’t have the right to see media I want to see.

goatcode 5y ago

> In case someone hasn't noticed, there is a war going on in Eurasia. I thought it was Eastasia.