In case anyone was wondering, Weinberg is a pushover with no constitution. I once asked him why #DuckDuckGo doesn't filter out privacy-abusing #Cloudflare sites & it triggered him. He had no sound defense.. no good answer for it. It's clear that he simply does not have the guts to truly deliver a privacy-respecting search engine. He's fixated on serving normies who are privacy-naive.
@resist1984
A privacy respecting engine mustn't spy on me, that's all. Filtering out any results using any criteria is the same BS as Google's censorship. My security is my own business, search engine should deliver me information, not decide what is good or evil.
@VikingKong You've set a very low standard of privacy by disregarding privacy abuses in the results. Filtering results is what search engines do; it's the whole point. If a search engine were to return to you their whole index you would learn very quickly the importance of filtering. A search engine that gives you results you don't want isn't serving you well.
@VikingKong Just as DDG financially supports #Microsoft. Even if Microsoft does not exploit the opportunity to see your IP when connecting to Azure-hosted DDG, & then match that IP to your query that DDG passes to Bing, you're still helping DDG feed Microsoft (who doesn't serve DDG for free).
@VikingKong If you're not really committed to privacy, then I have to say #DDG might be a perfect fit for you. The whole business model of #DuckDuckGo is based on privacy propaganda.. to sell the illusion of privacy. If you want a search engine that's committed to privacy, you use Ss.
@resist1984
Sounds like "you're setting a very low standard of privacy if you don't allow a search engine to know better what results do you need". It's a pretty normie thing when some sort of Big Brother decides for people what is good and and what is evil. I know how to deal with my security and search engines shouldn't impose anything on me.
What about your last sentence — a search engine shouldn't give me results I want it should give me relevant results, that's all.
@VikingKong The flaw in your premise is the assumption that it's possible to visit a #Cloudflare site without harming privacy. When you give traffic to a CF site, you inherently undermine privacy by feeding privacy abusers, normie or not, defensive tools or not. When you support a privacy abuser, you are deciding for everyone that the abusive site is worthy of existence.
@VikingKong "I know how to deal with my security and search engines" <= you clearly do not if you're going to feed a privacy abuser. The underlying problem here is you've taken the selfish & short-sighted "privacy for me" stance, as opposed to "privacy for everyone". Feeding adversaries of privacy is short-sighted because it neglects boycott power as a tool against privacy abusers.
@VikingKong Your unwillingness to stop supporting privacy abusers is indicative of being uncommitted to privacy. It's a right-wing "fuck everyone else" attitude. The problem of that is the web then becomes saturated with poor options which you enable to persist.
@VikingKong There is also an absence of /privacy in numbers/ principles. Choosing not to cooperate with a privacy movement actually lessens your own privacy. E.g. if you don't use the same browser print as others, you expose yourself as well as shrinking privacy in numbers for everyone else. Using Tor helps not just yourself, but it also helps provide cover traffic for other Tor users.
@VikingKong You're suggesting that a so-called pro-privacy search tool recognize & direct users to privacy abusers. Such a move not only works against the privacy mission, you're also asking for inherently irrelevent results. Relevancy is a score based on a number of factors such as whether a website has a white background, so of course a privacy-hostile site is irrelevant to privacy seekers.
@resist1984
A whole Internet beginning with your ISP is a privacy abuser these days, so if you're so concerned, just stop using the Internet. People have to know how to deal with security challenges and be aware of them, but nobody should decide which site is worthy of existence and which is not. What you're talking about is just another facet of cancel culture or some sort of paternalism, it has nothing to do with neither privacy nor security.
@VikingKong Again, you're clearly not committed to privacy if you visit #Cloudflare sites. Yet you expect a search engine to cater for normie needs. If a search engine that specializes in privacy would compromize their results in order to please those who are not committed to privacy, it would cease to be a pro-privacy search engine. Instead, it would just be another #DDG or #Google.
@VikingKong Privacy is relative. It's a false dichotomy to say it's a binary. #Cloudflare sites are clearly at the bottom end of the spectrum, and when they are suggested by a search engine that claims to be pro-privacy, that search engine is falely positioned.
@VikingKong "People have to know how to deal with security challenges" <= this is precisely why privacy-respecting search engines are useful. They are a great tool for people to deal with security challenges. A tool that litters privacy-respecting results with privacy-abusing garbage (DDG) doesn't help. We don't even want to see the bad options. This is what makes onion.sercxi.eu.org so useful.
@VikingKong Another way to look at this: for every privacy-abusing walled-garden #Cloudflare URL that appears among high ranking results, there is a privacy respecting result further down w/more merit that is denied visibility, which is more relevent to users who value privacy. Elevating #Cloudflare sites to the top is not countering censorship-- it's just censoring something different.
@VikingKong And if you actually want to deal with #Cloudflare sites, then at best you're only pretending to favor privacy. To give your attention & traffic to a privacy abuser is to feed the abuser. Even if you think you've managed to work out how to mitigate disclosure throughout your connection, you're still feeding a privacy abuser by giving them attention.