4 ms·
For context, the WIRED op-ed was written by a DuckDuckGo executive. I can certainly imagine the incentive there for DDG to misrepresent Google's behavior (and a
by spondylosaurus 3y ago
For context, the WIRED op-ed was written by a DuckDuckGo executive. I can certainly imagine the incentive there for DDG to misrepresent Google's behavior (and as I was reading the article, most of it struck me as speculation more than anything).
ETA: Okay, weird. The op-ed itself made it sound like she was a current DDG executive, but her LinkedIn profile states that she no longer works there (and is more or less self-employed now). No idea how to interpret that.
In any case, she was DDG's legal counsel and VP of policy for three years.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yegg 3y agoThis person is not employed by DuckDuckGo. They formerly worked there, and not for a couple of years. We had nothing to do with this op-ed.
- hackernewds 3y agoMere employment does not negate that the person might still have financial incentives tied to DDG. If anything, they might be concealed better and are MORE likely they can publish with conflict of interest, without legal risk.
- whycome 3y agoYou're right. And on the other hand, someone with passion and knowledge about the domain will likely be working for one of its major players at some point.
- Angostura 3y agoAre claiming that the author still does have financial links to DDG? That's quite an accusation.
- frde 3y agoIs it such a ridiculous idea that a former executive might have stock options or some kind of lingering financial stake? Worth at least investigating.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y agoWith laser precise specificity, what - exactly - are you inferring she did?
- Rastonbury 3y agoIn the article, it stated she was an ex-DDG employee