6 ms·

This is a quote from you “[W]hen you search, you expect unbiased results, but that’s not what you get on Google,” @matthewde_silva quotes @yegg" Seems you're

This is a quote from you “[W]hen you search, you expect unbiased results, but that’s not what you get on Google,” @matthewde_silva quotes @yegg" Seems you're backtracked on being unbiased with the recent announcement of DuckDuckGo censoring sources on the back of the Ukrainian War. Any comment on that - seems like the bigger DDG gets, the further you stray from your initial values https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1114524914227253249 https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1114524914227253249

yegg 4y ago
No, there hasn't been any backtracking on this. The full quote continues "On Google, you get results tailored to what they think you’re likely to click on, based on the data profile they’ve built on you over time." Unlike other search engines (like Google), we don’t alter search results based on someone’s previous search history. In fact, since we don’t track our users we don’t have access to search histories at all. Those other search engines show you results based on a data profile about you and your online activity (including your search history), and so can be slanted towards what they think you will click on the most based on this profiling. This effect is commonly known as the search filter bubble, but using DuckDuckGo can help you escape it. This does not mean our search results are generally “unfiltered” because, for every search you make online, a search engine’s job is to filter millions of possible results down to a ranked order of just a handful. In other words, a search engine has to use algorithms programmed by people to determine what shows up first in the list of results, what shows up second, and so on. Otherwise, for every search you’d just get a completely random set of results, which of course wouldn’t be very useful. However, we do this ranking in a strictly non-partisan manner, and not based on my politics (or anyone's for that matter). I left another comment here on how that works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557837
- muchtest 4y ago
  Your last statement directly contradicts your tweet on March 10th. "Like so many others I am sickened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the gigantic humanitarian crisis it continues to create. #StandWithUkraine At DuckDuckGo, we've been rolling out search updates that down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation." We get it - you are making these moves because of financial reasons or political pressure....but don't try and play to both sides with the corporate speak. https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318 https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318
  - yegg 4y ago
    No it doesn't. Here's the comment in full: ** We actually do not intentionally censor any news results, meaning media outlets are not being removed or their stories displayed so far down in the results they are effectively removed. That is, unless legally prohibited, you should find all media outlets in our results, and they should generally show on top if you search for them by name or domain name. If you are seeing otherwise, please let me know and we will investigate. A search engine's primary job is to rank results, trying to put results that most quickly and accurately answer the query on top. We do this ranking in a strictly non-partisan manner. Ranking for news-related searches is particularly difficult because for most news stories there are often hundreds of media outlets covering the same story, many with similar relevancy in terms of keyword matching and popularity. As such, we look to another ranking factor to ensure just the top of the results aren't taken by obviously very low-quality news results so that users have more sources of relevant, high-quality news results to compare and choose between. The non-partisan factor we've found to help accomplish this is a rare, but well-documented history of a site's complete lack of news reporting standards, such as routinely using spam or clickbait to artificially inflate traffic, consistently publishing stories without citing sources, censoring stories due to operating with very limited press freedom, or misleading readers about who owns, funds, and authors stories for the site. And since we do not censor sites, even state-sponsored media in countries with very limited press freedom, these sites will still show up in results, and even on top like when you search for them directly. ** With that context, RT is a media outlet with "very limited press freedom" where journalists must censor their articles or else face jail time, or worse. And RT still shows up in our results, and on top if you search for it directly, e.g., https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rt+ukraine&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rt+ukraine&ia=web
    - muchtest 4y ago
      You're splitting hairs when you say down ranking is not censorship - you know full well the impact to a websites traffic once it gets out of the top 3 results let along the 1st page of results. The fact you started censoring "Russian media outlets" right after the start of the war shows the political nature of your decision, those "limited press freedoms" weren't a concern until Mar 22. Do you publish the decision making process for how the "non-partisan" decisions on censorship are made - or is this another blackbox? I'm sure Dailymail, New York Post and Al Jazeera are all down-ranked too, considering they meet your "non-partisan factors" right?

yegg 4y ago

No, there hasn't been any backtracking on this. The full quote continues "On Google, you get results tailored to what they think you’re likely to click on, based on the data profile they’ve built on you over time." Unlike other search engines (like Google), we don’t alter search results based on someone’s previous search history. In fact, since we don’t track our users we don’t have access to search histories at all. Those other search engines show you results based on a data profile about you and your online activity (including your search history), and so can be slanted towards what they think you will click on the most based on this profiling. This effect is commonly known as the search filter bubble, but using DuckDuckGo can help you escape it. This does not mean our search results are generally “unfiltered” because, for every search you make online, a search engine’s job is to filter millions of possible results down to a ranked order of just a handful. In other words, a search engine has to use algorithms programmed by people to determine what shows up first in the list of results, what shows up second, and so on. Otherwise, for every search you’d just get a completely random set of results, which of course wouldn’t be very useful. However, we do this ranking in a strictly non-partisan manner, and not based on my politics (or anyone's for that matter). I left another comment here on how that works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557837

muchtest 4y ago
Your last statement directly contradicts your tweet on March 10th. "Like so many others I am sickened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the gigantic humanitarian crisis it continues to create. #StandWithUkraine At DuckDuckGo, we've been rolling out search updates that down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation." We get it - you are making these moves because of financial reasons or political pressure....but don't try and play to both sides with the corporate speak. https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318 https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318
- yegg 4y ago
  No it doesn't. Here's the comment in full: ** We actually do not intentionally censor any news results, meaning media outlets are not being removed or their stories displayed so far down in the results they are effectively removed. That is, unless legally prohibited, you should find all media outlets in our results, and they should generally show on top if you search for them by name or domain name. If you are seeing otherwise, please let me know and we will investigate. A search engine's primary job is to rank results, trying to put results that most quickly and accurately answer the query on top. We do this ranking in a strictly non-partisan manner. Ranking for news-related searches is particularly difficult because for most news stories there are often hundreds of media outlets covering the same story, many with similar relevancy in terms of keyword matching and popularity. As such, we look to another ranking factor to ensure just the top of the results aren't taken by obviously very low-quality news results so that users have more sources of relevant, high-quality news results to compare and choose between. The non-partisan factor we've found to help accomplish this is a rare, but well-documented history of a site's complete lack of news reporting standards, such as routinely using spam or clickbait to artificially inflate traffic, consistently publishing stories without citing sources, censoring stories due to operating with very limited press freedom, or misleading readers about who owns, funds, and authors stories for the site. And since we do not censor sites, even state-sponsored media in countries with very limited press freedom, these sites will still show up in results, and even on top like when you search for them directly. ** With that context, RT is a media outlet with "very limited press freedom" where journalists must censor their articles or else face jail time, or worse. And RT still shows up in our results, and on top if you search for it directly, e.g., https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rt+ukraine&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rt+ukraine&ia=web
  - muchtest 4y ago
    You're splitting hairs when you say down ranking is not censorship - you know full well the impact to a websites traffic once it gets out of the top 3 results let along the 1st page of results. The fact you started censoring "Russian media outlets" right after the start of the war shows the political nature of your decision, those "limited press freedoms" weren't a concern until Mar 22. Do you publish the decision making process for how the "non-partisan" decisions on censorship are made - or is this another blackbox? I'm sure Dailymail, New York Post and Al Jazeera are all down-ranked too, considering they meet your "non-partisan factors" right?