"The new specification won’t become legally binding until the California attorney general blesses it."
So it seems the started with the Law first, instead of Do not Track which tried to lead with code.
But maybe fingerprinting is unavoidable. As far as I understand, to avoid fingerprinting, you would need to not have any browser cache at all.
For a completely independent search engine, Gigabalst is surprisingly good in terms of index and relevance. Not as good as Google or Bing, but I think it is a one-man operation. Mojeek also just received an investment to build out their index.
At Runnaroo, I partially use Google as the backend, but I have done a good amount of testing on the above options in case Google or Bing stop being options.
Just as important as the search results, Bing provides the monetization for DDG through their ad network, so DDG is dependent on Bing for two critical parts of the business. I don't think Bing will ever kick them off because it must be very profitable for them and they need to do everything they can to get marketshare against Google.
There is always Yandex I guess
While I do believe Google has the superior search engine, there may also be an argument for denying them the "vertical integration of identity". That is, if you use Gmail and Google Search, Google can figure out more about you (in theory) than if you use just Gmail. Same reason I never -ever- use Facebook SSO for logging into non-Facebook sites.
Personally, I think they would suffer. Their API https://duckduckgo.com/api shows what they can provide as result. I believe the reason why it's missing a lot, most of the actual results, is because Microsoft Bing doesn't allow to offer a public API to redistribute the results from the Bing API.
Seems pretty clear their standard search results come from Bing. It even used to say "multiple partners like Bing, Yahoo, etc" but Yahoo was also powered by Bing. They like to change the wording to make themselves sound less reliant on Bing even though if Bing were to cut off access, DuckDuckGo would immediately cease working.
In my opinion, I don't think it should matter too much that they might not be crawling for their own index as long as they're reordering the results. But I do think there is some stigma where metasearch engines aren't looked at with as much prestige.
Pick something really odd like “Purple car teacup” and google seems to give really bad results. 3 links to amazon, 2 to Pinterest, and 2 to EBay. They all link to thepurpleteacup.com, but only google has a Yoycart link, it also wants to replace car with cat. I think Bing started off with the best image search and ddg the worst, though bing wanted to ignore teacup for the bottom half of it’s results.
"difference between wet and dry suit" bing and ddg web site results are almost identical, only ranking differences. Youtube results on the page are identical. Google is quite different.
"average temperature of a dog" Again bing ddg very similar, Google completely different.
"average lifespan of a domestic cat"
"list of medication that has interactions with grapefruit".
Just try more complex theories. The importance of ddg / bing relation is something they specifically and actively try to hide behind smoke and mirrors.
Bing and ddg are somewhat closer, but far from identical. Include the second page of googles results, and all three have vetinfo.com etc, but bing and google have two links to www.quora.com where ddg doesn’t have any. I only bring that up because of you compare results under the assumption that bing and ddg are identical it’s easy to overstate the similarities.
So for example, instead of comparing unknown results directly to the Bing SERP, I will compare it to Ecosia's SERP because it is powered by Bing will generally be less manipulated (i.e. closer to what Bing just returns in their API). Bing also adds a lot of other information to their own SERP which they might not make available in their API.
It's definitely not a fingerprint, but the source of organic SERPs are almost always identifiable.
What about storing, using for making user profiles, using for targeted ads ?
I’m already sending my search query to DDG for them to give me search results. They don’t ask for any additional data. They just allow advertisers to bid on the first few results for a particular topic.
I’m ok with that.
You cannot prove a service preserves your privacy. You can only prove that it does not preserve it.
In practice these documents don't really relate what the company is actually doing with your data. It's just something that has to be there on a website.
It's like ppl saying Telegram is private just because they say so.
Can you give one instance where Telegram lied about privacy?
It is very clear it is not e2ee on their website. They are private. Many privacy features on Telegram do not exist on other platforms.
Google and MS say that they do collect a lot of data. I indeed trust them here... What’s the point?
What does that have to do with privacy? I don’t use Brave (I won’t use anything Chromium-based while it has such dangerously high market share), but I think that controversy was exaggerated. All they where doing was adding redundant metadata (already present in the useragent string), IUUC not tied to any identity other than their own (not just an “anonymized” identity, no unique user identifier at all) to get some non-privacy-violating profit. And the phrase “hijacking links” is quite misleading — they didn’t change any actual links on pages, only added affiliate codes to the suggested omnibar completions you could choose to accept.
(Edit:) DDG I would be careful about. I still use it but try not to recommend it without mentioning https://github.com/asciimoo/searx — which I think is worthy of trust, being Free/Libre — because of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23708166.
This line in their post gives away how overblown that stance is. There's simply no way for DDG to be as bad as Google, much less worse than Google.
Still, I know Brave got caught hijacking links but DDG is, among all well-known search engines, the most privacy-friendly without a doubt. Especially coupled with a good browsers and some add-ons. I'm talking specifically about Firefox but I'm sure people here have some more unusual solutions they prefer.
I use FF as default. Brave as secondary.
No. They removed the sketchy affiliate thing.