The "Harmful Partnerships" section is a list of issues the author has with third-parties, not DDG. Guilt by association. I don't believe I could follow that log

The "Harmful Partnerships" section is a list of issues the author has with third-parties, not DDG. Guilt by association. I don't believe I could follow that logic in anything but very egregious cases as doing so would quickly eliminate my use of, well, anything. (The whole approach seems faulty to me in any case as it ignores context in those issues, and compartmentalization that occurs in those companies.) The rest seem to be lacking context. The Censorship accusation takes me to a link that has an update from 6 years ago indicating that their crime is something inherited from an upstream search provider and not intentional. The other accusations are in some cases just that, "accused", or lacking context and necessary details to establish motive. Saying "read: bribe" to a contribution makes me feel the author has an axe to grind when it's follow by assumptions to people's motives and interests. Overall, this reads like a stretch. It looks damning at a glance, but falls apart once you start looking at the details. Happy to read criticism of DDG if it exists, but I feel like this was an invented laundry list. Show me one really good reason why I shouldn't use DDG, instead of 100 questionable ones. But I didn't know what searx was before now, so that's cool at least. (Disclosure: I work for AWS, which is mentioned in the article. Views are my own, etc.)