No, actually, it's not the point, it's completely tangential to any point.
Either someone has valid points or they don't.
It doesn't matter whether it's a pathological liar saying it, or the most truthful person in the world. Either his criticisms of duckduckgo have merit or they don't.
Motives, while interesting to speculate about, do not change the strength of the argument.
No, actually, that was my point, and while you can disagree with my point, you can't tell me what my point is.
Listen, I'll make it easy for you.
> Either his criticisms of duckduckgo have merit or they don't.
So let's say they have merit. That means they have merit in all cases. Nothing is 100% proof against surveillance. Nothing is. So once you get over that, the rant against DDG is pointless. Because if at a technical/legal level, nothing can protect you, then everything is equal. What you have left is things like intent. In this case, the intent of DDG is to do what they can to protect you.
And they've taken distinct steps to do that. Steps that make DDG different from Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and others. Heck, comparing those three to DDG is disingenuous at best because they aren't even remotely the same (even if you consider them all search engines). This is especially true when you include the quotes the OP was trying to use. Using the OP's own evidence that he keeps using, it doesn't say what he wants it to say.
So, the only way his criticisms hold water is if nothing can protect you. He wasn't arguing that.
Either someone has valid points or they don't.
It doesn't matter whether it's a pathological liar saying it, or the most truthful person in the world. Either his criticisms of duckduckgo have merit or they don't.
Motives, while interesting to speculate about, do not change the strength of the argument.