4 ms·

It should be said that, if I understand it correctly, these worries are about the DDG browser, not their search, which is what most people (myself included) ass

It should be said that, if I understand it correctly, these worries are about the DDG browser, not their search, which is what most people (myself included) associate with them and care about.

bilekas 4y ago
This. And it also should be said that the Metro.co.uk is quite garbage sensationalism . I don't know many who use their browser, personally I moved over to Brave recently and so far so good.
- k__ 4y ago
  I use Brave's browser and search too. Sad to hear that DDG lost it's integrity with this move.
  - nicce 4y ago
    To be honest, I would trust more DDG than Brave still. Brave’s business model is based on ads which is very controversial, and that model always ends up compensating with the cost of user privacy.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - MomoXenosaga 4y ago
      The business model of the internet is ads.
- wtch98 4y ago
  Metro is from the same group that brings you the daily mail, of course it's garbage
- criley2 4y ago
  This is actually a really classic use of the 'ad hominem' to try and reject the argument by attacking the source. I do agree that Metro is a bad source, however if you read the article, you'd find it's not actually that bad. I say this because NPR was running the same angle yesterday, and several "more reputable" sources are reporting the same thing as well. Frankly, for DDG to spend all this money blasting "we actually care about privacy" advertisements in radio and online, and then to play around like this, it's certainly dangerous. That advertising campaign is probably why news outlets are even discussing this. "You defined your brand standard, why shouldn't we hold you to it". I'm sure their marketing folks are upset! All that money on a message, undone in a flash.
criddell 4y ago
The worries are about brand and integrity, not any particular product. Either they are a privacy-focused company or they are not. If RMS took a job with Adobe, do you think people would question his commitment to open source?
- tokai 4y ago
  I get your point but I can't help being obstinate; RMS is not committed to open source.
  - tux1968 4y ago
    People may misinterpret your point, unless you make it clear that RMS rejects the term "open source" in favour of "free software".
    - criddell 4y ago
      You and tokai are correct. Thanks to both of you for the correction.
asddubs 4y ago
I think that's letting them off easy. Even if you don't care about their browser, their conduct in regards to the browser is a canary for their potential conduct regarding search and other products in the future. I think people are wrong to brush this off because it's "only about the browser"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
yegg 4y ago
Yes, I (CEO/Founder, DuckDuckGo) left a top-level comment responding to the article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557587. Would suggest reading it for a fuller explanation. In short though, you're right it isn't about our search engine. It also isn't about 3rd-party cookies (another point of confusion I've seen), which our browsers block (including for 3rd-party Microsoft scripts). 3rd-party Microsoft scripts are also further restricted in our browsers with additional web protections, e.g., fingerprinting protection, Global Privacy Control, referrer header trimming, etc. What this article is talking about specifically is one web protection that the major browsers don't even attempt to do — stopping third-party tracking scripts from even loading on third-party websites. You can see that for yourself at the bottom 'tracker content blocking' section of this audit site: https://privacytests.org/ios.html https://privacytests.org/ios.html (scroll to the very bottom).
- asddubs 4y ago
  doesn't matter, IMO. Playing favorites is a bad look for a privacy focused company, and it lowers trust in your products across the board.
  - LivingstonSea 4y ago
    Favorites? The answer is that this is a hard problem to solve and isn't just a Microsoft thing means it's not picking Favorites.
    - asddubs 4y ago
      I don't understand what you mean. They entered a contractual agreement that prevented them from applying tracking protections to microsoft properties in some situations. How is that not picking favorites?
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. So far they are being transparent. If you were a DDG user, you should keep supporting them for now and see where it takes us. There aren’t many tech companies that are privacy focused. And so far I think it’s in our best interest that privacy first becomes mainstream.

It should be said that, if I understand it correctly, these worries are about the DDG browser, not their search, which is what most people (myself included) associate with them and care about.

bilekas 4y ago

This. And it also should be said that the Metro.co.uk is quite garbage sensationalism . I don't know many who use their browser, personally I moved over to Brave recently and so far so good.

k__ 4y ago
I use Brave's browser and search too. Sad to hear that DDG lost it's integrity with this move.
- nicce 4y ago
  To be honest, I would trust more DDG than Brave still. Brave’s business model is based on ads which is very controversial, and that model always ends up compensating with the cost of user privacy.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - MomoXenosaga 4y ago
    The business model of the internet is ads.
wtch98 4y ago
Metro is from the same group that brings you the daily mail, of course it's garbage
criley2 4y ago
This is actually a really classic use of the 'ad hominem' to try and reject the argument by attacking the source. I do agree that Metro is a bad source, however if you read the article, you'd find it's not actually that bad. I say this because NPR was running the same angle yesterday, and several "more reputable" sources are reporting the same thing as well. Frankly, for DDG to spend all this money blasting "we actually care about privacy" advertisements in radio and online, and then to play around like this, it's certainly dangerous. That advertising campaign is probably why news outlets are even discussing this. "You defined your brand standard, why shouldn't we hold you to it". I'm sure their marketing folks are upset! All that money on a message, undone in a flash.

criddell 4y ago

The worries are about brand and integrity, not any particular product. Either they are a privacy-focused company or they are not. If RMS took a job with Adobe, do you think people would question his commitment to open source?

tokai 4y ago
I get your point but I can't help being obstinate; RMS is not committed to open source.
- tux1968 4y ago
  People may misinterpret your point, unless you make it clear that RMS rejects the term "open source" in favour of "free software".
  - criddell 4y ago
    You and tokai are correct. Thanks to both of you for the correction.

asddubs 4y ago

I think that's letting them off easy. Even if you don't care about their browser, their conduct in regards to the browser is a canary for their potential conduct regarding search and other products in the future. I think people are wrong to brush this off because it's "only about the browser"

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

yegg 4y ago

Yes, I (CEO/Founder, DuckDuckGo) left a top-level comment responding to the article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557587. Would suggest reading it for a fuller explanation. In short though, you're right it isn't about our search engine. It also isn't about 3rd-party cookies (another point of confusion I've seen), which our browsers block (including for 3rd-party Microsoft scripts). 3rd-party Microsoft scripts are also further restricted in our browsers with additional web protections, e.g., fingerprinting protection, Global Privacy Control, referrer header trimming, etc. What this article is talking about specifically is one web protection that the major browsers don't even attempt to do — stopping third-party tracking scripts from even loading on third-party websites. You can see that for yourself at the bottom 'tracker content blocking' section of this audit site: https://privacytests.org/ios.html https://privacytests.org/ios.html (scroll to the very bottom).

asddubs 4y ago
doesn't matter, IMO. Playing favorites is a bad look for a privacy focused company, and it lowers trust in your products across the board.
- LivingstonSea 4y ago
  Favorites? The answer is that this is a hard problem to solve and isn't just a Microsoft thing means it's not picking Favorites.
  - asddubs 4y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. They entered a contractual agreement that prevented them from applying tracking protections to microsoft properties in some situations. How is that not picking favorites?
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. So far they are being transparent. If you were a DDG user, you should keep supporting them for now and see where it takes us. There aren’t many tech companies that are privacy focused. And so far I think it’s in our best interest that privacy first becomes mainstream.