4 ms·

Hi, CEO & Founder of DuckDuckGo here. I see a lot of confusion here too, we are not ranking based on my politics (or anyone's politics for that matter). We act

by yegg 4y ago

Hi, CEO & Founder of DuckDuckGo here. I see a lot of confusion here too, we are not ranking based on my politics (or anyone's politics for that matter). 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.

9Ljdg6p8ZSzejt 4y ago
Seriously, try kagi. Its better.
- Zhyl 4y ago
  Are you suggesting to the CEO and founder of DDG to try Kagi?
icc97 4y ago
I love what you're been fighting for and it's great that you're on here. I'd even accept you accepting MS tracking cookies if you're transparent about it - you have to make money and I'd rather you stay in business. But I can't see anything from this post or the answers you gave to the metro specifically refuting this [1]: "The new @DuckDuckGo browsers for iOS/Android don't block Microsoft data flows, for LinkedIn or Bing" [1]: https://twitter.com/thezedwards/status/1528808759027331072
- yegg 4y ago
  I actually left a top-level comment on this post that responds to the article in depth here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557587. To be clear, though, we do block Microsoft 3rd-party cookies and their 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
emeth 4y ago
> 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. Do you publish these scorecards publicly? If there is no transparency, we cannot assume your assessment is non-partisan.
benf76 4y ago
This is doublespeak cover for censorship. The corporate media uses the same buzzwords about quality to obfuscate their serving of the Kabal’s agenda. A wise man from Texas once said: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... can’t be fooled again.

by yegg 4y ago

9Ljdg6p8ZSzejt 4y ago

Seriously, try kagi. Its better.

Zhyl 4y ago
Are you suggesting to the CEO and founder of DDG to try Kagi?

icc97 4y ago

I love what you're been fighting for and it's great that you're on here. I'd even accept you accepting MS tracking cookies if you're transparent about it - you have to make money and I'd rather you stay in business. But I can't see anything from this post or the answers you gave to the metro specifically refuting this [1]: "The new @DuckDuckGo browsers for iOS/Android don't block Microsoft data flows, for LinkedIn or Bing" [1]: https://twitter.com/thezedwards/status/1528808759027331072

yegg 4y ago
I actually left a top-level comment on this post that responds to the article in depth here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557587. To be clear, though, we do block Microsoft 3rd-party cookies and their 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

emeth 4y ago

> 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. Do you publish these scorecards publicly? If there is no transparency, we cannot assume your assessment is non-partisan.

benf76 4y ago

This is doublespeak cover for censorship. The corporate media uses the same buzzwords about quality to obfuscate their serving of the Kabal’s agenda. A wise man from Texas once said: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... can’t be fooled again.