Does the misleading "spreadprivacy" domain name really do more good than harm?
It's fine to market DDG as privacy respecting, but making an astroturf "privacy advice" org is disgusting.
It's fine to market DDG as privacy respecting, but making an astroturf "privacy advice" org is disgusting.
If they want a product blog, rather than using something like this as a name, they can simply do what other respectable companies do and use something like
- duckduckgoblog.com
- duckduckgo.com/blog/
- blog.duckduckgo.com
Edit: Didn't notice that the sticky header once you scroll down does say "DuckDuckGo Blog". Not sure why it can't just say that in the actual header; intentionally vague or baffling design?
Why don't you look at the header?
> To most people who aren't familiar with the DuckDuckGo logo, this would indeed look like the site of some privacy advocacy group.
Seriously???
And why don't you look at my comment talking about the header?
> Seriously???
You seriously think more than 10% of Internet users recognize the DuckDuckGo logo? (Actually, s/10%/1%/.)
If you were actually confused (hard to believe) just reading the content would clarify any confusion. Check out the first line of the article.
This thread would have a point if the blog spoke of DDG in the third person, but it doesn’t.
As actuator said in the thread, it should be duckduckgo.com/blog/.
Why?