4 ms·

After the invasion of Ukraine they announced they would be removing sites "associated with Russian disinformation." They haven't provided a definition of what

After the invasion of Ukraine they announced they would be removing sites "associated with Russian disinformation." They haven't provided a definition of what that includes. Lots of DDG users were upset because this is the type of thing they objected to with Google.

soundnote 4y ago
In DDG's defense, some of the censorship was required by law - we don't know if DDG went further than demanded - and Eich himself will tell you that Brave had to remove some results as well.
- BrendanEich 4y ago
  No, I never said we removed anything due to some nation state's MiniTrue calling it misinformation or disinformation. All search engines must comply with laws (CSAM, right to be forgotten or whatever it is called now) in various regions. That compliance is not in any way the same category as what DDG boasted in March 2022 that it was doing.
  - soundnote 3y ago
    I didn't try to imply such: Like I said, you had to remove things by law. No? Could've been clearer, I guess.
    - BrendanEich 3y ago
      But DDG did not have to virtue-signal as it did in March 2022 due to force of law or even unlawful threats from a nation-state. Categorically different -- there's no comparison.
      - soundnote 3y ago
        Absolutely true. Let's say there's a reason my search engine pages show a lion and not a duck.
kbazbaz 4y ago
Check this out for DDG's explanation: https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/news-rankings/ https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/ne...
p-e-w 4y ago
Thanks for the heads up, this will certainly affect how (and how often) I use DDG in the future. I despise disinformation and war propaganda, but I decide for myself what content falls in those categories – I don't need my search engine to decide it for me.
Larrikin 4y ago
[flagged]
- iopq 4y ago
  If they censor "misinformation" in one case, what's to stop them from censoring other "misinformation"? Maybe the COVID lab leak theory is deemed misinformation and removed from your search result. But it's not 100% proven either way, who is to say that this is "misinformation"? It's one thing to suggest an opinion that's just more popular, it's another to remove the competing opinions
  - schmuelio 4y ago
    Oh boy that slope sure seems slippery doesn't it? You know that reasoning can be applied to literally any removal right? There's _tons_ of stuff that it would be pretty reasonable to remove (and I'm sure you'd agree that things like CP shouldn't be on there etc.). There's also plenty of stuff that they would likely _have_ to remove if the state told them to (I don't have direct evidence of this happening, so take it as a hypothetical), while this isn't necessarily a _good_ thing, it's also not a slippery slope. I'd also like to highlight the thing where you implied that Russian state propaganda is just an opinion or a theory (and therefore just as valid as any other innocuous opinion or theory), which is at best intellectually dishonest.
    - iopq 3y ago
      CP and unlawful content is what the state forces them to remove. Other opinions are exactly the slippery slope I am talking about. Russian propaganda is propaganda and lies, but if you remove one type of lies, then why not COVID misinformation? No government is FORCING them to any of this, so it's a slippery slope
    - dmichulke 4y ago
      The difference is the motive - political matters are influencing people and thereby who's in power. "literally any removal" is not inherently political Think about it as a potential conflict of interest when a politician or a company decides that a topic should be censored.

soundnote 4y ago

In DDG's defense, some of the censorship was required by law - we don't know if DDG went further than demanded - and Eich himself will tell you that Brave had to remove some results as well.

BrendanEich 4y ago
No, I never said we removed anything due to some nation state's MiniTrue calling it misinformation or disinformation. All search engines must comply with laws (CSAM, right to be forgotten or whatever it is called now) in various regions. That compliance is not in any way the same category as what DDG boasted in March 2022 that it was doing.
- soundnote 3y ago
  I didn't try to imply such: Like I said, you had to remove things by law. No? Could've been clearer, I guess.
  - BrendanEich 3y ago
    But DDG did not have to virtue-signal as it did in March 2022 due to force of law or even unlawful threats from a nation-state. Categorically different -- there's no comparison.
    - soundnote 3y ago
      Absolutely true. Let's say there's a reason my search engine pages show a lion and not a duck.

kbazbaz 4y ago

Check this out for DDG's explanation: https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/news-rankings/ https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/ne...

p-e-w 4y ago

Thanks for the heads up, this will certainly affect how (and how often) I use DDG in the future. I despise disinformation and war propaganda, but I decide for myself what content falls in those categories – I don't need my search engine to decide it for me.

Larrikin 4y ago

[flagged]

iopq 4y ago
If they censor "misinformation" in one case, what's to stop them from censoring other "misinformation"? Maybe the COVID lab leak theory is deemed misinformation and removed from your search result. But it's not 100% proven either way, who is to say that this is "misinformation"? It's one thing to suggest an opinion that's just more popular, it's another to remove the competing opinions
- schmuelio 4y ago
  Oh boy that slope sure seems slippery doesn't it? You know that reasoning can be applied to literally any removal right? There's _tons_ of stuff that it would be pretty reasonable to remove (and I'm sure you'd agree that things like CP shouldn't be on there etc.). There's also plenty of stuff that they would likely _have_ to remove if the state told them to (I don't have direct evidence of this happening, so take it as a hypothetical), while this isn't necessarily a _good_ thing, it's also not a slippery slope. I'd also like to highlight the thing where you implied that Russian state propaganda is just an opinion or a theory (and therefore just as valid as any other innocuous opinion or theory), which is at best intellectually dishonest.
  - iopq 3y ago
    CP and unlawful content is what the state forces them to remove. Other opinions are exactly the slippery slope I am talking about. Russian propaganda is propaganda and lies, but if you remove one type of lies, then why not COVID misinformation? No government is FORCING them to any of this, so it's a slippery slope
  - dmichulke 4y ago
    The difference is the motive - political matters are influencing people and thereby who's in power. "literally any removal" is not inherently political Think about it as a potential conflict of interest when a politician or a company decides that a topic should be censored.