11 ms·
Ask HN: Alternatives to DuckDuckGo and Firefox?
There's been recent news and articles about both of the above platforms taking a less firm stance on free speech absolutism within the last year (such articles have hit front page on HN, I find it redundant to link them here). Personal politics aside, it feels like it'd be healthy to have a glut of platforms that have a variety of stances on free speech, and yet it's been quite hard to find one that sticks to its proposed principles.
Are there alternatives that some of you would recommend in this sense?
- gru 5y agoVivaldi browser - https://vivaldi.com/ https://vivaldi.com/ I switched to it from chrome and never looked back. Tons of good features, really customizable, and (what seems like) a pretty sound business model (no crypto!)
- MrJohz 5y agoOne of my colleagues uses Vivaldi, and he is constantly finding the weirdest bugs that I can only ever reproduce in Vivaldi, and that seem to break with every spec I can find. * In all other browsers, clicking a "select file" element and then cancelling out of the dialog does not fire a `change` event on that element - except in Vivaldi, where you get a `change` event with no files in it. * In all other browsers, setting the `Content-Length` header is enough for the browser to be able to give the user a file size estimate. Not in Vivaldi, which seems to use some other heuristic that I never managed to figure out - currently on our systems, the download dialog shows the file size as "unknown" and I've left it at that. * Vivaldi has a feature where, if you close the window and then reopen it, it opens the page you were previously on. It's a nice feature, and I like it. Unfortunately, for the instant that the page is being reopened, any `matchMedia()` listeners will produce weird results. (Note that `window.screen.width` will still report a reasonable value, just one that contradicts the result of the `matchMedia()` query.) This is by far the weirdest and most niche bug I've found. Obviously every browser has its own quirks - although modern browsers tend to have far fewer of them, so I'm much less tolerant of an evergreen browser that doesn't match spec these days - but what makes it far worse in Vivaldi's case is that, if you do find one of these bugs, the only way to report it is an online form with almost no feedback at all - there's no public list of bugs and not even a way to view the status on your own bug. Apparently they email you if something changes, but I've not experienced that yet. In all fairness, from having tried out Vivaldi to reproduce these weird bugs, I'm quite impressed with how the browser feels, but the non-compliance with standards and the inscrutability of the bug report system have turned me off completely.
- raxxorrax 5y agoFirefox has bad management after they fired people with wrong opinions, but it is still better than the Chrome monoculture. This will especially apparent if they migrate to manifest v3 completely around next year. DDG is far easier replaced. Brave for example.
- dgut 5y agoOkeano [0] is a free speech absolutist and privacy friendly search engine. [1] [0] https://okeano.com https://okeano.com [1] https://twitter.com/OkeanoSearch/status/1502077779243847686 https://twitter.com/OkeanoSearch/status/1502077779243847686
- bogdanos 5y agoI've been using https://metager.org https://metager.org for a month. Looks pretty neat, no ads so far.
- elforce002 5y agoBrave Search. Brendan Eich recently said Brave doesn't censor. Here are some of his tweets on the matter: - https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1501978997860683776?s=20&t=SdN39Fa5kM3xveX5eVenCA https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1501978997860683776?s... - https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1502113286417838082?s=20&t=SdN39Fa5kM3xveX5eVenCA https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1502113286417838082?s...
- t0bia_s 5y agoBrave is probably not that privacy friendly as their marketing says. - https://blackgnu.net/brave-is-shit.html https://blackgnu.net/brave-is-shit.html
- soundnote 5y agoLet's go through some of this thing: > But Brave is more private than Firefox by default > No, not at all. People who claim this have fallen for Brave’s marketing strategy which consists on telling lies and flawed arguments. The first thing to note here: Firefox defaults to Google as the default search engine and has search suggestions turned on, so whatever you write in the address bar gets sent to Google. Doing worse than that is really, really fucking hard. > Their adblocker is just a fork of uBlock Origin How, when uBlock Origin is a browser extension and Brave's adblocker is written in Rust and integrated into the browser. > Another problem with their built-in adblocker is that it’s better for extensions to be separated from the core of the browser, since they don’t follow each other’s update cycles. This means that you need to update the entire browser to fix a bug in the adblocker. Stupid, isn’t it? Yeah, Manifest v3 would like a word. uBlock will be fucked, Brave Shields won't care. > Another reason to avoid using Brave is that uBlock Origin works best on Firefox and there isn’t anything that Brave can do about it. These are limitations of the extension system in Chromium. Brave Shields isn't an extension, and actually does do things like CNAME uncloaking, which extensions can do on Firefox and can't do on Chromium. What was that about the blocker being integrated into the browser again? > Rewards is their shitty program that will replace ads displayed on websites with their own. The adblocking system and the ads from Brave Rewards are entirely separate. You only need to identify to cash in the BAT. Yeah, some people are looking to make pennies from their cut of being an ad viewer (spoiler: single ad viewers arem't very valuable). The whole schtick of the system is to tip content creators, where a pileup of BAT can be a real sum of money and some compensation for adblocking tracking ads. > Brave has been caught inserting affiliate codes > In June 2020, a twitter user (@cryptonator1337) discovered that Brave was automatically injecting referral codes into URLs for cryptocurrency exchange sites. > > So if you typed “binance.us” into the URL bar and pressed enter, Brave would take you to “binance.us/?ref=35089877”. > > There was a huge scandal when this was noted. Later, Brave disabled this in the code, in a “sorry we got caught” style. Yeah. You know this Firefox Suggest thing Mozilla recently released? Same deal. Type incomplete URL, it suggests an ad from a local catalog. Suggesting an ad when typing a full URL was a bug, was fixed. And you know what else they did? They turned the whole feature off by default. I have to give the hit piece credit for not insinuating they replaced urls within the page, as many others do.
- joeman1000 5y agoStartpage has been my search engine for a while. I’m surprised no one has mentioned it here.
- sarcasmatwork 5y agohttps://brave.com https://brave.com Browser and search engine.
- devoutsalsa 5y agoI’ve been using Brave and quite like it. Every now and then I find myself missing some features from Chrome, but nothing I miss enough to remember what it is. The idea of earning crypto for surfing the web is also interesting, but it’s mostly a gimmick to me and I ignore it.
- kradeelav 5y agoHad it on a family member's android, somehow skipped my mind that they could've had an ubuntu option. Thanks for posting!
- rg111 5y agoI have used Brave on Linux for a very long time now. Super smooth experience.
- supergirl 5y ago> Brave Search doesn’t use secret methods or algorithms to bias or censor results I'm sold. Then I open and type "rt". The autocomplete tells me this is a "state controlled Russia network", while for BBC it says "public service broadcaster". So much for "no bias" (technically all they said is the bias is not secret, but still). Not sure where they get these snippets from. Looks similar to wikipedia but it's not verbatim.
- soundnote 5y agoThey're literally legally required to do that by EU sanctions, and Eich has been clear that they comply with the law, but no more. A lot of other search engines could also be doing only that, but are not communicating the scope and whether they're doing more than what they're compelled to. The chief concern is with search companies editorializing out of their own volition.
- wand3r 5y agoI just got into the beta for https://kagi.com/ https://kagi.com/ which at this time seems at least as good if not better than DDG
- pixard 5y agoThey also make a (as they claim) zero telemetry browser called Orion (https://browser.kagi.com https://browser.kagi.com). It is super fast, but there's not enough trust built there yet for me to use it as my main browser. I just use it as a dedicated HN browser for now. It has sidebar tabs built in which is _the_ killer feature for me. I think Edge did this best, but I refuse to use a MS browser. I've been using Kagi full time for a few weeks now and it has been a very pleasant experience. Search results seem consistently better than DDG and my !g use is significantly down. And it is really really fast. YMMV. I'm curious if this company will survive long term. I fully plan to pay a subscription once they introduce that, but the way they describe it in their FAQ makes it sound way too niche for my taste. They should make one unified (low) price for Kagi with no search caps. And then offer a "Premium" plan with some extra features (NOT the number of searches done). Segregating into entry level and "unlimited" (horrible name btw) plans sounds like a recipe for disaster considering all other search engines are unlimited by default AND free by default. Maybe techy people will value things like no telemetry and no ads but I question if there's enough of us that value these things AND are willing to pay for this AND choose to become their customer. Good luck to them. :)
- soundnote 5y ago> I think Edge did this best, but I refuse to use a MS browser. Edge is a good browser, but an absolute privacy disaster. Hardware based session IDs, chatty start pages that push you to Bing, the typical search suggestions on by default. Microsoft runs their own sync backend but does not allow for end to end encrypting all data types. Among the ones not e2ee'd? Browsing history.
- webmobdev 5y ago> They also make a (as they claim) zero telemetry browser called Orion Would be easier to trust them if they didn't want an email ID to download their browser. Seeing that they also want to create a search engine, I suspect that your search and browsing history could be linked to it to profile you.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y agoSearx is interesting for replacing DDG.
- kradeelav 5y agoInteresting, haven't heard of it. Would be curious as to what made you pick it, if you don't mind.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y agoTheir tagline says it all: “a privacy-respecting, hackable metasearch engine”
- accraze 5y ago+1 for Searx - love the idea of meta-search
- vonwoodson 5y agoneeva.com is a subscription search engine. I think privacy counts as a premium service now. Although, I wouldn’t expect anyone to not work with the police, even if you pay.
- darioush 5y agoWhich is why providers should not persist things about their users. This is the only acceptable direction now.
- scim-knox-twox 5y agoneeva is not respecting GDPR. They have checked checkbox newsletter by default. Moreover, why they need a name for registration?
- hackernewds 5y agoWhy should you care whether or not the service will work with the police? Seems specific
- viraptor 5y agoPolice may be enforcing laws that you consider immoral. There's lots of current laws I would consider immoral. (requests like "Confirm whether this person searched for abortion clinics") On the other hand if any business exists as a legal, registered entity, of course they will comply with local LE requests. Not sure who expects otherwise.
- pcunite 5y agomojeek is truly a totally different index.
- ranguna 5y agoLibrewolf is a Firefox fork stripped out of all telemetry with additional privacy oriented default settings.