2 ms·

> This is also a somewhat misleading title since it's not about our search engine, which people would assume I understand the controversy (or at least I think

by bambax 4y ago

> This is also a somewhat misleading title since it's not about our search engine, which people would assume I understand the controversy (or at least I think I do), and I also respect what you're trying to explain. But if DuckDuckGo has to have a browser (instead of simply recommending to its users to change their default search engine on their current browser), then that browser needs to live up to its promises, and also to very high standards. On the current page for the DDG browser [1] it says at the top: > Seamlessly take control of your personal information, no matter where the Internet takes you. If this means anything, it means the DDG browser blocks all trackers, always, in all places, no? [1] https://duckduckgo.com/app https://duckduckgo.com/app

yegg 4y ago
No browser can provide 100% protection if for no other reason than the tracker landscape is constantly evolving as it works to evade our protections. We will re-evaluate our marketing messages, though as a comparison look at how the major browsers market their tracking protections and yet do not even attempt to provide any script blocking, let alone have major holes in their cookie protection (see https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/).
- bambax 4y ago
  > the tracker landscape is constantly evolving Sure. But this is usually addressed by filter lists. > see https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/ Very interesting link, thanks. Didn't know that localStorage and sessionStorage could be read across domains! But the comparison should include (browser)+uBlock Origin. I wonder if there are many users who care about privacy and don't install uBlock Origin by default. Edit: added Origin to avoid confusion.
  - pixxel 4y ago
    uBlock Origin, right? It’s an important distinction to save people searching and installing uBlock.
    - bambax 4y ago
      Yes, of course. I updated my comment, thanks.
infamia 4y ago
> If this means anything, it means the DDG browser blocks all trackers, always, in all places, no? You've created a completely unrealistic standard. Nothing meets the standard of blocking all trackers everywhere as that isn't possible today or in the foreseeable future.
- bambax 4y ago
  Well then, they shouldn't promise what they can't deliver. Also, I don't think that's true. And it's part of the problem with the current DDG defense. They have an agreement with MS to not block 3rd party trackers, and they say "in any case it's very difficult to do and nobody else even tries to do it". It's a misdirection.
  - infamia 4y ago
    > Also, I don't think that's true. The best tools like uBlock, Umatrix, Privacy Badger, etc. all miss plenty of trackers, but not for a lack of trying. A complete solution doesn't exist today, nor is there anything promising on the horizon that I'm aware of. I am very curious to know the source of your optimism (I don't have much at the moment). > They have an agreement with MS to not block 3rd party trackers, and they say "in any case it's very difficult to do and nobody else even tries to do it". It's a misdirection. They shouldn't have done that to be sure, they've said as much, and are paying the price. They also said that future agreements won't include that carve out. They screwed up and will hopefully learn a valuable lesson from all this. I will say, you should have used more precise language and said something like, "they have an agreement to not block 3rd party trackers in their browser" (emphasis mine). Your statement suggests that they don't block those sorts of things across their entire line of products, which isn't true. You're adding to the confusion by using overly broad language that is not precise and not 100% truly accurate. Finally, I'm not aware of anything that is widely available that is as good privacy-wise as DDG and is actually usable by the most people. Until something exists that's just as good privacy-wise and is somewhat useful, I see very little choice but to use DDG. We'll see how DDG behaves in the coming months and years. Long term, they really should figure out something besides ads as a business model, since the incentives don't align with privacy.

by bambax 4y ago

yegg 4y ago

No browser can provide 100% protection if for no other reason than the tracker landscape is constantly evolving as it works to evade our protections. We will re-evaluate our marketing messages, though as a comparison look at how the major browsers market their tracking protections and yet do not even attempt to provide any script blocking, let alone have major holes in their cookie protection (see https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/).

bambax 4y ago
> the tracker landscape is constantly evolving Sure. But this is usually addressed by filter lists. > see https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/ Very interesting link, thanks. Didn't know that localStorage and sessionStorage could be read across domains! But the comparison should include (browser)+uBlock Origin. I wonder if there are many users who care about privacy and don't install uBlock Origin by default. Edit: added Origin to avoid confusion.
- pixxel 4y ago
  uBlock Origin, right? It’s an important distinction to save people searching and installing uBlock.
  - bambax 4y ago
    Yes, of course. I updated my comment, thanks.

infamia 4y ago

> If this means anything, it means the DDG browser blocks all trackers, always, in all places, no? You've created a completely unrealistic standard. Nothing meets the standard of blocking all trackers everywhere as that isn't possible today or in the foreseeable future.

bambax 4y ago
Well then, they shouldn't promise what they can't deliver. Also, I don't think that's true. And it's part of the problem with the current DDG defense. They have an agreement with MS to not block 3rd party trackers, and they say "in any case it's very difficult to do and nobody else even tries to do it". It's a misdirection.
- infamia 4y ago
  > Also, I don't think that's true. The best tools like uBlock, Umatrix, Privacy Badger, etc. all miss plenty of trackers, but not for a lack of trying. A complete solution doesn't exist today, nor is there anything promising on the horizon that I'm aware of. I am very curious to know the source of your optimism (I don't have much at the moment). > They have an agreement with MS to not block 3rd party trackers, and they say "in any case it's very difficult to do and nobody else even tries to do it". It's a misdirection. They shouldn't have done that to be sure, they've said as much, and are paying the price. They also said that future agreements won't include that carve out. They screwed up and will hopefully learn a valuable lesson from all this. I will say, you should have used more precise language and said something like, "they have an agreement to not block 3rd party trackers in their browser" (emphasis mine). Your statement suggests that they don't block those sorts of things across their entire line of products, which isn't true. You're adding to the confusion by using overly broad language that is not precise and not 100% truly accurate. Finally, I'm not aware of anything that is widely available that is as good privacy-wise as DDG and is actually usable by the most people. Until something exists that's just as good privacy-wise and is somewhat useful, I see very little choice but to use DDG. We'll see how DDG behaves in the coming months and years. Long term, they really should figure out something besides ads as a business model, since the incentives don't align with privacy.