• FIST_FILLET@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    NO.

    1. it is US-based
    2. the CEO is the former founder of the “Names Database”

    for the love of god, use anything but DDG. Qwant is EU-based and has decent results, SearX is another one which lets you choose between instances (or host your own).

    please stop taking US “privacy” services seriously. i was hoping people would know better on here, compared to reddit

  • Milk@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    DDG was known as the best option for search engines but then they started talking of censoring stuff and also it has Microsoft trackers and other problems. Yes, it is still better than Google, Bing and Yandex when talking of privacy but with search engines like Qwant and specially SearX (SearXNG) there’s no reason to use DDG over these.

  • UprisingVoltage@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly yeah. There’s been some controversies in the past, but for someone who’s looking for a zero-effort way to browse privately and support the privacy scene (DDG donates a lot of money) it’s a great choice. Wouldn’t recommend their browser/extensions though

    • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Definitely would agree with this. The best of a bad bunch. I use it for nearly all my search.

      Did see some sketchy stuff with the android app/browser so probably would avoid… and besides, I’m in a decades long relationship with firefox <3.

      • UprisingVoltage@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly, there’s just no reason to use anything other than firefox on desktop

        On mobile IN MY EXPERIENCE Firefox has always been unbearably slow. I’ve tried everything: getting it from play store, F-Droid and github, using the beta and nightly version, tried it with and without extensions: it sometimes took 10+ seconds to load some pages, I don’t know why. It’s been like this on other smartphone models too.

        That’s why I use brave from mobile, it’s blazing fast and it has a lot of nice features, starting from the amazing bottom bar to their solid integrated adblocker and dark mode.

      • janonymous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you use Firefox on mobile as well? I use the DDG browser and don’t whether I should switch. Haven’t heard what exactly is wrong with it, yet.

  • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. Plus the founder is pro-censorship and weighting search results based on his own worldview.

    At this point Searx is the only viable option, both in terms of privacy and results. Yes it ultimately ends up using the backend of the big three, but with customizable layers of abstraction and behaviour.

    • NicoCharrua@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can also use ddg.gg which is even shorter!

      And you don’t even need to go the website homepage, just type something like ddg.gg/search promt and it’ll give you results straight away.

      This is great even if you use a different search engine because you can use !bangs without needing to go through another webpage.

    • Rooki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The “Privacy Statement” of Brave Search is somewhat weird tbh. Not clear, Obfuscated.

            • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Edit: My comment below was based on a faulty understanding of how EDDM mailers worked and a faulty assumption I based on that ignorance. What they did in reality is little more than sending out spam mail, it was not a privacy violation.

              Purely from a privacy standpoint, however, there has never been an indication they have violated users’ trust in that regard.

              That’s simply not true though.

              They have sent out direct mailers that basically equated to a customer list leak.

              In regards to the mailers, they messed up and passed blame,

              In this process, our EDDM vendor made a significant mistake by not excluding names, but instead including names before addresses, resulting in the distribution of personalized mailers.

              I hope you consider a customer list leak to be a breach of privacy. And seeing how they didn’t take responsibility but tried to pass blame, they didn’t take such a mistake very seriously or respond in a manner that instills further trust.

              • TiffyBelle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

                • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think you may be right actually. When I read this

                  In this process, our EDDM vendor made a significant mistake by not excluding names, but instead including names before addresses, resulting in the distribution of personalized mailers.

                  from their statement, I made an assumption because I didn’t look at how EDDM works. The way I read “not excluding names, but instead including names” was: We sent a list of names to the vendor; the vendor was supposed to exclude those names, and mail to everyone else in the ZIP, but instead, they mailed to only those names. It seems that’s not an accurate understanding of the situation. I think the correct reading is: we said “no names” on our EDDM mailers but they acted as if we said “yes names” on our EDDM mailers.

                  From my original interpretation, that is essentially a customer list leak, or at least a ‘localized’ customer list leak, especially for anyone in a shared living environment where someone else may see the name printed on a Brave mailer and learn that that person is a Brave user.

                  Thanks for clearing it up though. Let me try to go back and edit a few previous comments where I’ve said this to clarify.

  • codenul@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Check out Mull browser. There’s mobile version as well for desktops. Its lightweight Firefox without any of the telemetry.

    • snek_boi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the recommendation. I wonder if you’re confusing the DuckDuckGo browser with the DuckDuckGo search engine. I am assuming the post is about the search engine 🙃

  • PlasmaK@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    DDG still spies on you. It still better than google, i guess, but i personaly use disroot’s searx

  • ggnoredo@lemm.ee
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s better than google but It’s not good. Only options is self hosted searxng

  • tRFRmrNe8Nj2Kimc@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I prefer using DDG or Firefox, however my device I lower end and I find that Brave works best on it.

    But I use DDG for my search engine.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Brave had some dodgy stuff at the start with their crypto weirdness. I think there owner was involved in questionable data practices at his last company. Personally, I would expect someone running a privacy company to have integrity and not compromise on those values in previous ventures.

  • themizarkshow@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not perfect, but it’s way better for privacy than Google and looks a million times better than Bing. Sometimes the middle path is the best you can hope for / ask of others.

    • stonemilker@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Their privacy policy and data flow have been the same since the buyout, they were transparent about any implications and the mitigations put in place to protect users, so I’m alright with it. The biggest problem I have with them is sometimes getting rate-limited because of a VPN or Tor, but that’s it. Alternatives like DDG and Brave Search are usually bad for results in my native language, so I’ve been using Startpage for a couple years now and it’s nice

      • FarLine99@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        For me Brave search has pretty good results. Not as Google, of course, but enough. Definetly better than DDG.

        • Rooki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Its not about how good. How much privacy. Brave search is worse then DDG in all ways and form. Bad Search Results, Weird to get and read Privacy Policy???, Brave had at sometime a crypto miner in it.

          • FarLine99@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know why you have problem with Brave Search Privacy. They do log operating system and browser version. Is that scary? You can easily bypass this f.e. by using Chameleon Firefox extension.