Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

DuckDuckGo just ended their value proposition:

https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318

Not that there are many great alternatives, but the whole point of a SEARCH ENGINE is not censoring results. I understand ranking makes it searchable, but omitting views / results based on politics is self-reinforcing and makes anyone using the service blind to views and in a sense reality.

I think search can’t really be “improved” until it’s decentralized and uncensored. The quality decline IMO has to do with the social networks and “trusted news sources”, which I also think is a walled garden limiting accuracy of info.

See “trusted news initiative”: https://www.bbc.com/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/

View on HN

> but the whole point of a SEARCH ENGINE is not censoring results

Disagree. I hate it as much as the next person when Google censor results due to DMCA request (a law i couldn't care less about which shouldn't have jurisdiction over me), but you have to admit there are things to limit. Should a search engine return child porn results? (Yes, it's an easy and egregious example, but that's the point - there are such subjects).

Furthermore, censoring low quality enemy propaganda is a public service.

> Furthermore, censoring low quality enemy propaganda is a public service.

I think anyone looking to keep people from understanding is an enemy. You fight propaganda with truth, not censorship.

The main reason a lot of people use DDG is privacy, not uncensored search results. I do think that this move could have been handled better.

Both go hand in hand with trust. When you compromise one you poison the other due to lost trust.

I think your mistaken, the only reason DDG took off, at least in the circles I’ve visited (open source communities, privacy focused, politics, etc) is the freedom to research anything in a safe way.

Think of it another way, “who cares about privacy?” Probably those searching for “unacceptable” ideas.

If they censor, who’s to say they wouldn’t turn you into the authorities for “wrong think”.

Their value proposition of privacy was damaged by this BECAUSE they want to limit your search results.

thank you for articulating this properly -- privacy & censorship are intricately intertwined, like yin & yang

Spreading lies is a value proposition? I disagree. I don’t think “censoring child porn” is a bad thing either, which DDG does. Just because information of some sort exists, doesn’t mean it’s inherently valuable to spread.

Did anyone seriously believe that DDG or its data sources did not filter content before?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com