That’s some very bold claims and I don’t believe them to be true. Some of them might, if you were to take my point to extreme, but discussing with positions nobody holds is pointless.
Having some protection from fake news and the like, wouldn’t eliminate difference of opinions, need to verify sources and so on.
I even have problem with calling what DDG is doing “censorship”.
This is a slippery slope argument.
I haven’t looked into Firefox’s case, so I can’t really judge here. Is there a reason why you can’t simply not rely on their judgement if you don’t trust it? Or why this would be a problem outside of scope of people who decide to use it? What about Firefox’s freedom to provide moderated service and freedom of people who wish to use it?
Not really. Similar “changes of heart” happened in the past and people were able to simply acknowledge it and stop supporting given services. The thing about DDG is that it doesn’t have any power to make me use it. I can just not do it. Make up my own mind about it, if you will. This could be a problem if we were talking about service with monopoly, but then again we are fine with law being a thing, even though it actually does have all those powers.
So far all responses in this topic were taking absolute position towards the search without showing how it differs from sites you might want to curate and that’s what I’m arguing against.
I don’t expect him to do that. No way, it’s not feasible. But what he can do, and what i have experienced with my parents is that they then call me and ask me questions. And to the best of my knowledge, and the help of all the information i can find, i could give them an answer. He can call you, can’t he? You help him, with the knowledge you have and the info you can find.
Arriving at wrong conclusions is human. To err is human. A virus is something completely else and not the topic here.
But i understand your point and what you are trying to say all along. Unfortunately, you can’t protect everybody, all the time.
Since the dawn of time, people will die, either of missing that crucial piece of information about which berries not to eat or kill themselves because they can’t live with the shame of losing everything to a scammer.
Being the judge about what information people should get and what not, makes you a censor.
I understand that some information is to be classified but most of it should be readily accessible for everybody. Yes, even the bits you wouldn’t like to read/see/hear. It’s as simple as that.
The function of a search engine is to just that. Search for information. On the regular web, dark web, deep web, whatever web… If it’s out there, i want to be able to find it and no search engine is going to redact anything for me. That’s when it stops being just that and becoming a censor.
Like now, here in Europe, RT.com is censored. TOR has come in really handy these days. And guess what, in Russia, they’re doing the same but with European sites. So both sides are wrong in keeping information from their people.
The lack of information keeps us from having a well underlined debate. (hopefully i’m saying this right).
You should look at some history then. Have a look at what happened in east germany, after ww2, or in germany during the second world war. Or have a look at the teachings of the “Khmer Rouge” in Cambodia during their reign. Or look at what Stalin did, or Mao… The list is endless… Most of what @Ulfnic pointed out, happened. Again, all this information ready at hand for you to read and learn.
Fair point, "When something is censored it creates’ should be worded “When something is censored it can create” with the larger the censorship, the greater the chance and degree.
Centralizing arbitration of truth removes almost all choice and makes it vulnerable.
A handful of browsers and search engines aren’t comparable to the optionality of millions of platforms all of whom curate differently. For example this conversation we’re having shouldn’t be arbitrated by anyone but DLN.
Ask any lawyer or judge and they’ll tell you how important precedent is.
Did you just compare DDG fight with misinformation to biggest massacres of human history and all that despite argument being that nothing should be absolute?
Nope. I just gave some examples of what happened or could happen (again) when information gets censored or redacted. (like the things we see happening now).
That’s all.
DDG is/was great. You seem to agree with their political stance on down-ranking certain results. Would you use Qwant knowing that they are not doing this? They provide the same service that DDG did just a week ago.
I don’t know what’s wrong with that. Slippery slopes exist, knowing when you’re on one should make you take a step back and re-evaluate the path your on. Doesn’t mean you won’t end up at your destination, you’ll just end up there without falling on your face.
It is always weird how accusations of “becoming purely political” seem to get thrown around this site as soon as someone squeaks the smallest argument which could be construed as counter to right wing talking points.
It derails threads so easily when it really shouldn’t.
I didn’t realize we’re throwing accusations around.
If i did, i apologize for that.
I thought we were discussing if it’s good or bad that a search engine starts to redact results.
Last thing i’m saying about this is this: a search engine should do it’s job. And in my opinion, it should be just that. Search for all the available information. Period.
I’d really like to see, at least part of, the conversation limited to just tech side of things (browsers and search engines). With that being said, I don’t mind anyone discussing anything at all, I’d just like to see some separation of the discussion.
I enjoy hearing everyone’s opinion, especially with everyone’s experience with specific apps. But there are some things that I’m not interested in discussing.
Good call. I enjoy coming to these forums and the Linux community in general because I can escape the political world around me and just be a nerd. It is unfortunate that the things we like about Linux, the freedom, the choice, the security, end up becoming political somehow.
If i’d attempt to steelman @Kikuchiyo’s arguement, it’s that direct search intervention isn’t a problem until it’s doing something you don’t want it to and then you can make a value judgement to remain or leave. Companies will be disincentivized to use poor intervention because people will vote with their feet.
Presently DDG is doing 0 (or close to it) intervention with the intention to purely remove information made in bad faith during the current conflict. Something that could even be considered a useful service and has yet to do otherwise.
Coming from that perspective the level of response in this thread is extremely disproportionate as nothing negative has happened yet let alone being on par with a lot of the examples presented.
That’s a pretty serious complaint toward me which i’ll forward to Michael, you should send him examples if you have them. Moderators must be held accountable for injecting bias.
The framework i’m using is limited politics are fine as long as they’re in service of a topic that’s DLN-centric. Purely political posts or using DLN-centric content as an excuse to dig into politics (particularly as a means to be provocative) is something there’s no or very little flexibility for depending on the post but there’s a lot of flexibility for mistakes and I will usually not delete it.
If that’s a bad framework or I am applying that selectively it is the responsibility of the community to insure that doesn’t happen.
I think that is a bit of an overreaction. I’m not specifically referring to you or the Moderators.
Although, just the other day we had a DLN mod talk positively about banning Russian IPs from their network and in the same breaths condemn someone for “being purely political” equating DDG blocking Russian content with Twitter tagging Trump content as disinformation.
Just last month, he downloaded a virus while thinking he was getting MMS. He didn’t call me, because he didn’t know there was anything fishy about the situation. And he’s not technologically illiterate either. He used to tech kids in elementary/secondary school about computers, so he’s above average when it comes to this kind of knowledge.
Also your argument is for him to have a trusted source, that helps him get quality information. Why can’t this trusted source be DDG?
You are arguing against reducing misinformation, by proposing self-learning as a better solution. I’m using example to show why this is not good enough. This is very much on topic.
I’m not claiming we can. Also, being unable to protect everyone in no way means we shouldn’t protect those we can.
Depending on what definition you want to use, I don’t have problem with “censorship” if it’s justified.
There’s literally no value in Russian propaganda. On the contrary, it’s very harmful. But also this information isn’t being erased or anything. DDG just helps to those who might otherwise stumble upon it accidentally.
And I want less people to die in a war and propaganda does have an impact on how far Putin can go. Do you really believe that your want is more important here?
How can you seriously draw comparison between authoritarian, aggressive, censorship state and efforts to fight it?
Putin’s disinformation isn’t spread to debate or argue. It’s to create uncertainty and confusion. It wasn’t made to withstand any actual fact checking.
I didn’t realize we’re throwing accusations around.