3 ms·
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 t
by soundnote 3y 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 3y agoNo, 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 agoI 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 agoBut 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 agoAbsolutely true. Let's say there's a reason my search engine pages show a lion and not a duck.