considering DuckDuckGo

[Aris Marghetis]

So in other threads here, I read about this DuckDuckGo alternative to Googling, and at first glance it looks interesting. Anyone have thoughts on using it instead of regular Googling? Thanks.

[George Stajov]

There is also Brave Browser. Much more private. brave dot com

[Aris Marghetis]

There is also Brave Browser. Much more private. brave dot com

Thanks George. If I understand correctly, Brave is a browser, and it partners with DuckDuckGo as its search engine?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I tried on the phone - the first page was full of ads :/

[Vlad Drkulec]

I tried on the phone - the first page was full of ads :/

Brave, I suppose? Duckduckgo is just a search engine that doesn't keep track of your searches and returns searches that are unfiltered for ideology. I think it is even possible to use it within google, though, why bother?

https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-revenue-model/

[Kerry Liles]

Thanks George. If I understand correctly, Brave is a browser, and it partners with DuckDuckGo as its search engine?

I've been using DDG as my default search engine for quite a long time (years?) Works well as far as I can tell. Enough google and microsoft and other tracking going on already.

[Stephen Humphreys]

I have been using DDG for a couple of years. It is perfectly fine for most things, but Google does seem to work better for difficult searches.

[David Ottosen]

Your search engine is just one of many things tracking your online activity. For the most part, that online tracking is used to personalize your experience more and direct you where smart algorithms determine you probably want to go. The handwaving over privacy is, frankly, overstated. I'm sure there's not a team at google poring over the results to determine that Vlad Drkulec seems to prefer 1.e4 opening books vs 1.d4.

[Aris Marghetis]

64% of the people who joined extremist groups on Facebook did so because the algorithms steered them there.

— Internal Facebook report, 2018

[David Ottosen]

64% of the people who joined extremist groups on Facebook did so because the algorithms steered them there.

— Internal Facebook report, 2018

“We’ve learned a lot since 2016 and are not the same company today,”

In the early days of algorithms this was certainly true - they weren't all that smart, and certainly could be manipulated by those that understood them. A lot has changed in the past few years.

However, I can't deny that if you're pre-disposed to a certain way of thinking, these algorithms will direct you further along that path. It has good parts and bad parts. For example:

You search for the word "chess".

Your browser, your search engine, and every site you visit records you as having some sort of predilection for chess and probably that you're from Canada. They then review their history to see which kind of ads or links people with an interest in chess tended to be attracted to, and serves you those ads.

Maybe it decides an ad for the CFC or CMA is likely to be the most attractive to you, and serves you an ad that's relevant and interesting to you.

Maybe it decides an ad for "I hate underrated juniors and they should be banned from chess" web site is likely to be the most attractive to you, and serves you an ad that takes you to a site where everyone is 50+ years old and complains about junior chess players, causing you to become more extreme in your views on the subject.

The question is how smart the CFC/CMA ads can be in attracting interest, vs a banner ad saying "LOSING RATING POINTS TO JUNIORS? CLICK HERE FOR 5 TIPS TO JUMP YOUR RATING". If more people are clicking on the latter than the former, that ad takes more prominence. Digital marketing has become smarter in helping combat this over the years, but it's still an arms race - there's huge value in your link being the most interesting and most clicked in terms of winning the algorithm.

However, none of it means you have to click on anything you don't want to. I certainly think it's better that when I search for "chess", it shows me things about Canadian chess, rather than my search engine showing me links to the weekend tournament coming up in Poland, or the facebook page of some random guy named Robert Chess.

If you want to maintain your privacy, great. Just accept that the search engine is going to be stupider for it, and you probably haven't really gained anything by google not finding out you like chess.

[Aris Marghetis]

I totally hear ya. I feel that I can control my own clicking. And it appears that you feel the same way about yourself. That's fine and dandy, but it seems that huge swaths of people DON'T EVEN REALIZE THEY'RE LOSING CONTROL OF THEIR CLICK CHOICES. I know at times it's corny, but check out the movie The Social Dilemma on Netflix. What struck most about it is not that it made points as well and specifically as I thought it could have, but it was the tremendously broad arrangement of interviews they had with significant industry insiders. That was almost scary?!

Anyway, back to DuckDuckGo, Brave, etc., I've decided that in a very small way, using them will very slightly erode the influence of digital marketing, etc. And who knows, by posting about it, maybe other readers will also switch to DuckDuckGo, Brave, etc. Therefore, thank you very much for your feedback, and I look forward to other users' comments. I'm committed to changing.

Best regards.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Netflix? That is so 2019.