So what? They don't say they're suppressing those results. All the results are still there, just the ones supposed least relevant further down the list. All search engines do this. If you think Brave doesn't, why?

But let me know, what about disinformation from Russia do you want included at the top of your search results? Or is that not what they mean by Russian disinformation?

I will keep using it with the knowledge my browser company is working on it's own - not a 2d hand google filter. I don't use a search engine to get my news - I have bookmarked credible sources which vary over time and don't need to "search" when those sites bring it up two weeks faster than legacy media.

Using a search engine to get the news is doing it wrong, as much as depending on the 6:00 news - all they do is repeat the Psaki level misinformation the narrative managers allow you to know. They won't play the link of Zelensky when he was in spike heels doing a topless dance routine. He has an "interesting" entertainment career in his former life as celebrity. The news sources that can and will link that aren't considered "credible" by legacy media fans and that is why they are a day late and a dollar short on what is going on.

Of course, you do get some interesting stuff that is later found to be fake. I will trade you one of those for a Corvair road test clip from the 60's - or a newscaster relating how his chopper was dodging missiles over Croatia. We could do that all day - the legacy media is full of manipulation and lies, yet "we need a better search engine to find the facts!" No, we have to sort thru all the news and decide for ourselves what it worth knowing - don't let someone else blenderize it to spoon down your throat.

Looking in the gutter for last weeks news isn't beneficial. Go to those who offer a better news feed directly and who don't filter out what some don't want you to know. It's like thinking, "we'll win the next election and clean it all up!" yet the same machines and people are stil in place. It's defined as psychotic to keep trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Don't "search," go to a better news source. If we can change browsers and search engines, then change who you get your news from in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
So DuckDuckGo filters Russian disinformation. How is that bad?

Holy shit, man.

Explain to me, please, who is determining just what qualifies as "disinformation" and how they are making such determinations. Is there a Central Council of Accurate Information? Who are the members of this council, and how do they determine what information is accurate, and what information is misleading? I would like for you to please explain this to us. Please feel free to provide as much detail as you wish.

For the past two years, the entire world has been told lies by health agencies and by governments about COVID-19. Over those two years, the story of what was going on, what was going to happen, the dangers we faced, ad what was necessary for all of us to do in order to prevent our deaths from this virus. Anyone who attempted to question the official narrative was accused of "spreading disinformation."

The words "disinformation" and "misinformation" are code for "don't question what we tell you."

COVID-19 is but one example. The ignorant opinions and virtue-signalling of those who think the Ukrainian conflict is the only war happening at present on this planet is another. There are many examples.

All that aside, I would like for you, Paten, to please tell us who decides just what is disinformation and how do they make such determinations.

I am eager to hear your response.

quote:

Originally posted by Tirod:
Don't "search," go to a better news source. If we can change browsers and search engines, then change who you get your news from in the first place.

Your remarks in your post are stultifying. I'm having difficulty formulating a response to you. I can't even call your remarks about not using a search engine "ignorant". It's beyond that.

This is not merely about DDG suppressing search results based upon their news media-driven opinions of a particular foreign conflict. This action on the part of DDG clearly indicates that they are no longer (or perhaps never were) who they claimed to be. Do you actually know anything about DDG and how they claimed to be different than Google? Do you know why I and many others in this forum have used DDG as a search engine and why we have urged others to do to, to the exclusion of Google search?

If they'll suppress search results for what they define as "Russian disinformation" based upon their news media-driven opinions, then, they are willing to suppress (or disallow completely) any search results by declaring those sites to be purveyors of this nebulous "disinformation" and I will ask you the same thing I asked of Paten: Who is determining just what is disinformation and how are they doing so? Please explain this to us.

And by the way, if you can get by on the internet with never using a search engine, then, I don't think you know how to use the internet.

It down ranks sites associated with Russian disinformation. So it doesn't matter. Those questionable sites will still be in the results, just not on the front page. So again, so what? You can still find your Russian disinformation if you want to, you just have to look harder.

Also, just because Brave search hasn't said they do the same thing, you know they have to, so people will get what they want in the top results.

I appreciate all the explanations. Summarizing my understanding, it seems like the ideal search engine would have two major functions: (1) keeping the user’s identity, location, search requests and results private and unavailable to advertisers, government and any other entities wishing to use that information and (2) providing the searcher with relevant search results without censorship, either subtle or overt.

Seems like DDG, Startpage and Brave? satisfy (1) while google, yahoo and bing most likely don’t. I’m guessing that even the ones that id you and store results can probably be defeated by using VPN since they’d have no way to tie anything back to the searcher, although that’s a bit more of a pain than just using an ideal search engine in the first place.

As for (2), that function sounds like it’s the tough one to ensure since legacy browsers tilt the results, DDG has announced they’re doing it as well, and Startpage is passing along google results (or at least may be). Anyone know how Brave’s search algorithms function? I’d guess most search engines consider their algorithms proprietary and aren’t public domain, so we’re dependent on analyzing results or being told by the company that they reorder results in some manner (google, DDG, others?). How SHOULD the ideal engine present search results? If they’d just present all results in some order without labeling, rating or censorship, would that work? Most hits to least?

I don't think the quest should be for the one search engine to rule them all which provides unfiltered search results; I think the goal is to be aware of the available search engines and understand their attributes and treat the results of whatever search engine you're using appropriately.

If you're out in the wild and thirsty, you look for the best source of water near you but still treat it accordingly as best you can before drinking it.

I think, like a good number of members, I go to Sigforum for information and it's a filtered source. We don't post breaking news about mass shootings, no links to questionable vendors, and no conspiracy stories among other rules. And I like the information that I get here including insights from members as they share their perspectives. I like the quality of the information I get here. I understand the source and I treat the information accordingly.

I think it's good to have whatever search engines you think you need in your toolbox. And it's important to understand it and use it accordingly.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
It down ranks sites associated with Russian disinformation. So it doesn't matter. Those questionable sites will still be in the results, just not on the front page. So again, so what? You can still find your Russian disinformation if you want to, you just have to look harder.

You conveniently never answered the most relevant question. Who decides what is the wrong information? After all, you seem perfectly happy to gobble up all of the misinformation coming from the Ukrainian side. Isn't that right? Just as long as it's nothing favorable to the big bad Russians. Pathetic.

DDG can go sit and spin. I'm done with them.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
It down ranks sites associated with Russian disinformation. So it doesn't matter. Those questionable sites will still be in the results, just not on the front page. So again, so what? You can still find your Russian disinformation if you want to, you just have to look harder.

And when they decide next to down-rank, say, "disinformation" about the RKBA? Or whatever else becomes the social justice issue du jour?

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
It down ranks sites associated with Russian disinformation. So it doesn't matter. Those questionable sites will still be in the results, just not on the front page. So again, so what? You can still find your Russian disinformation if you want to, you just have to look harder.

You are missing the point entirely. This goes far beyond "Russian disinformation."

Furthermore, I asked you to explain to us who is it that is determining just what qualifies as "disinformation" and "misinformation" and how they are making such determinations.

Don't avoid the question. Explain this to us.

I don't care who defines disinformation. If you do your search correctly with enough parameters it doesn't matter how low they down rank the site your looking for. It will still show up. I chose my search site by who claims not to track me or my searches. That's it. If you guys want to trust the search results you get from your search engine as being true, you go right ahead. I'll just go ahead and continue to doubt them all.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
I don't care who defines disinformation.

If you do your search correctly with enough parameters it doesn't matter how low they down rank the site your looking for. It will still show up. I chose my search site by who claims not to track me or my searches. That's it. If you guys want to trust the search results you get from your search engine as being true, you go right ahead. I'll just go ahead and continue to doubt them all.

Umm... "misinformation" has become whatever they do not agree with you on.
Misinformation Filtering = CENSORSHIP.

Let ME decide if I want to believe it or not.
When you censor it that just makes me not trust them and know whatever they filter aka censor is probably true.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
I don't care who defines disinformation.

No, what you're saying is that you don't know who is doing so, and therefore, you don't know the political views of who is doing so. Neither do you know their reasons for doing so, nor the criteria they use to do so.

In short, you give your tacit approval to something about which you have absolutely no understanding.

The example which was provided to you is valid- what if their next crusade against "disinformation" and "misinformation" affects the ability of the public to readily access information on gun rights? There are hundreds of such subjects which can be effectively censored by those controlling search engines. You don't think that some things are suppressed outright? I'm not about ranking. I'm not talking about finding the answer on page 63 of search results. I am talking about links which do not appear at all.

DDG was founded on a principle, and now, they are moving away from that principle. Go ahead and defend something you either do not understand, or, perhaps even agree with. In this case, one is as bad as the other.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm trying to tell you it doesn't matter which search engine you use. They all shape search results using various criteria that they don't tell you. Doubt the intentions of all of them.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

The words "disinformation" and "misinformation" are code for "don't question what we tell you."

With an implied threat of ridicule, cancellation and dehumanization.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm doing no such thing. Trying to carefully avoid the question doesn't change the fact that you cannot answer the question, and that makes what I said the truth.

Alright, I'll answer. Not you.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Here's their "Contact Us" page:

https://duckduckgobrowserapp.net/contacts

What am I supposed to do? Scrawl my objections on my computer screen with a crayon?

LOL, yeah of course they don’t want anyone contacting them! They could give a Rat’s Ass what their users think. Sure slim picking s though on search engines.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
Alright, I'll answer. Not you.

No, you're not answering, for the simple reason that you cannot; you don't know the answer.

Furthermore, you're behaving as this is merely about search engines. In the real world- not the virtual world- the terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" and "malinformation" are tossed about as a way to suppress and/or de-legitimize any data or discussion governments or agencies of governments or other such entities regard as dangerous to their official narrative.

In a recent memo, the Department of Homeland Security even used an acronym for this: MDM; mis-, dis-, and malinformation. The DHS has nothing to do with ranking search results on the internet. Neither do any other government agencies. Neither does the Centers for Disease Control, or the National Institute of Health, or any number of health institutions. The government is using these terms in an effort to suppress or discredit free speech.

This isn't just about search engines. As a matter of fact, search engines are the least of it. Are you OK with all of this, too?

So, did we all cease using FuckFuckNo?