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.
@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 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.
@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.