8 ms·
clearly labelled, contextual ads based on your current search query and a subscription option without ads Perfect! This is the way the god of the internet int
by jqpabc123 3y ago
clearly labelled, contextual ads based on your current search query and a subscription option without ads
Perfect! This is the way the god of the internet intended search engines to work.
But DuckDuckGo does the same and currently provides superior results based on a very brief test.
So good luck with that.
- godzillabrennus 3y agoDDG is amazing. To good to be viable I’m usually thinking.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoDDG sucked hard enough I'm now paying for kagi.
- notoverthere 3y agoDuckDuckGo also allows you to switch off ads, for free, without any fuss or adblocker needed. Just go to the settings page. Although if you aren't going to support DDG with ad revenue, I'd suggest supporting with a donation if you can afford it and value their service.
- jqpabc123 3y agoI really don't mind helping DDG take advertisers for all they are worth as long as it doesn't cost me my privacy or waste too much of my time. And if they take something away from Google in the process --- that's just an extra bonus. Turnabout is fair play don't you think? Google has worked very hard to take privacy away from users.
- candiddevmike 3y agoWhat would happen to DDG if Microsoft stopped letting them use Bing? What does MS get out of this relationship?
- jqpabc123 3y agoWhat does MS get out of this relationship? My guess --- a portion of the ad revenue.
- giancarlostoro 3y agoDDG rubbed me the wrong way when they decided to "filter misinformation" which is an arbitrary and biased thing. I don't side with Russia or anything, but I've seen this sort of thing get out of hand.
- 6510 3y agoOne of my favorite topics is treated as misinformation and completely scrubbed from google and Bing. The idea seems to be the assumption that one must believe all that one reads. Imagine a discussion where everyone agrees? Stract produced only good results. Unusually good.
- ralusek 3y agoI must know
- Fnoord 3y ago> The idea seems to be the assumption that one must believe all that one reads. Imagine a discussion where everyone agrees? So I don't know what topic you're on about but the one you replied to I do. And in that context, these two statements unfortunately do not add up as the second one is a huge stretch from the first. The misinformation in context (Russian propaganda, probably on rt.com or something) is designed to mislead. Not inform; mislead. This really is two steps further than a discussion between two equal discussion partners who disagree. A healthy discussion like that is based on arguments which are supported by premises. Russian propaganda is based on bullshit. It tries to spread as much bullshit as possible, then see what sticks. Defaults should be reasonable for the general public, the average user. They should be harmless. The term used for that nowadays is SFW. You don't want NSFW content by default; a search engine should by default remove that, but leave the option open to the user to do sift through it. For example, you don't want naked ladies on your screen at work or at home (if your wife or kids are parents are watching it might turn awkward).
- giancarlostoro 3y ago> but leave the option open to the user to do sift through it. I would be okay with this, similar with how on HN you can see dead threads.