resist1984 @resist1984@social.privacytools.io

@modrobert @otso Another thing to try is "Ansero". It's another search engine apparently made by the same project: https://ansero.nnpaefp7pkadbxxkhz2agtbv2a4g5sgo2fbmv3i7czaua354334uqqad.onion/

@otso @modrobert The umbrella is indeed the correct favicon, but it should not be a blank page. It would be interesting to know what happens if you skip the query form & try a simple GET request, such as: https://sercxi.nnpaefp7pkadbxxkhz2agtbv2a4g5sgo2fbmv3i7czaua354334uqqad.onion/?res&rq=companies%20that%20use%20facial%20recognition Notice that everything after "rq=" is the query.

@modrobert @otso Ss also flags non-CF sites that block Tor, so you know to go straight to the archives.

@otso @modrobert Ss helps you avoid #Cloudflare. First, it gives results that are not polluted with CF sites. It's ideal to avoid CF sites completely. If for some reason the non-CF sites are lacking, you can scroll to the bottom of the results and expand the list of CF sites that were filtered out. From there, you can click on the favicons to visit the archive.org mirrors of the CF sites.

@modrobert @otso Note as well that it's safe to ignore the SSL cert warning because you're ultimately going to an onion site, e2ee is inherent in the connection. The site uses SSL not for crypto but as a means for verification, & it tends to alarm people.

@otso @modrobert Sorry, I have to correct what I said earlier. http://onion.sercxi.eu.org/ *works* in Ungoogled Chromium for me. I get a "NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID" & was hasty to judge it as "broken". UG presents that error differently than Tor Browser so I didn't realize at 1st that I could click "proceed" in the fine print. Perhaps you have the same error.

@Delib @debian @jauntywunderkind420 some Bullseye caveats/pitfalls: https://geeknews.chat/@teqcritic/106592766133088544 /cc @claudiom

@joeligj12 well if it's a text editor and an operating system, it's still a text editor. I figured the humanity factor on emacs was higher than something as cryptic as vi, which is how I determined the answer.

i just solved a captcha question: which editor is best: vim, emacs, nano, etc. My answer was emacs, and of course that was the correct answer.

@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.

@imgn it's good, but i suggest not mentioning lemmy.ml. Instead, give this link: https://linuxreviews.org/Lemmy#Websites_running_Lemmy Lemmy's main instance has a rampant censorship problem & it's not generally good for the fedi to congest everyone on 1 node anyway (which has the effect of centralization)

@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 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 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 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.

@protonmail @1ll173r47 @seven @FediFollows I use a text-based client, so it's easy for me to mistype the ID of the thread i'm replying to.

@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 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 "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.

@FediFollows @seven @1ll173r47 @protonmail sorry, wrong thread. that wasn't meant for you. I have to delete and resend.