This title is very misleading (and really should be changed).
This is not about search. To be clear, when you load our search results, you are completely anonymous, including ads. For ads, we actually worked with Microsoft to make ad clicks privacy protected as well. From our public ads page, "Microsoft Advertising does not associate your ad-click behavior with a user profile." This page is linked to next to every Microsoft ad that is served on our search engine (duckduckgo.com). https://help.duckduckgo.com/company/ads-by-microsoft-on-duck....
In all our browsing apps (iOS/Android/Mac) we also block third-party cookies, including those from Microsoft-owned properties like LinkedIn and Bing. That is, the privacy thing most people talk about on the web (blocking 3rd party cookies) applies here to MSFT. We also have a lot of other web protections that also apply to MSFT-owned properties as well, e.g., GPC, first-party cookie expiration, fingerprinting protection, referrer header trimming, cookie consent handling, fire button data clearing, etc.
This is just about non-DuckDuckGo and non-Microsoft sites in our browsers, where our search syndication agreement currently prevents us from stopping Microsoft-owned scripts from loading, though we can still apply our browser's protections post-load (like 3rd party cookie blocking and others mentioned above, and do). We've also been tirelessly working behind the scenes to change this limited restriction. I also understand this is confusing because it is a search syndication contract that is preventing us from doing a non-search thing. That's because our product is a bundle of multiple privacy protections, and this is a distribution requirement imposed on us as part of the search syndication agreement. Our syndication agreement also has broad confidentially provisions and the requirement documents themselves are explicitly marked confidential.
Taking a step back, I know our product is not perfect and will never be. We face many constraints: platform constraints, contractual constraints (like in this case), breakage constraints, and the evolving tracking arms race. Holistically though I believe it is the best thing out there for mainstream users who want simple privacy protection without breaking things, and that is our product vision.
Overall our app is multi-pronged privacy protection in one package (private search, web protection, HTTPS upgrading, email protection, app tracking protection for Android, and more to come), being careful (and putting in a lot of effort) to not break things while still offering protections -- an "easy button" for privacy. And we constantly work to improve its capabilities and will continue to do so, including in this case. For example, we've recently been adding bespoke third-party protections for Google and Facebook, like Google AMP/Topics/FLEDGE protection and Facebook embedded content protection.
Yes, it is. Your competitors in the privacy-centric browser space don’t have this restriction because they’re not search engines acquiring the majority of their data from an entity with a conflicting interest.
I’m inclined to blame Microsoft here; this is a nasty move on their part. However, your stance is problematic. This is a problem, and it’s a serious one. It undermines trust in a product that claims to be the bastion of privacy. And statements like this…
> Overall our app is multi-pronged privacy protection in one package (private search, web protection, HTTPS upgrading, email protection, app tracking protection for Android, and more to come), being careful (and putting in a lot of effort) to not break things while still offering protections -- an "easy button" for privacy.
…don’t help the matter. To me, that just sounds like marketing mumbo jumbo. Ultimately, if a privacy-centric browser is contractually obligated to load tracking scripts and is required to avoid disclosing that fact, I want absolutely nothing to do with either party.
> Ad clicks are managed by Microsoft’s ad network.
> Microsoft and DuckDuckGo have partnered [..] Microsoft Advertising will use your full IP address and user-agent string so that it can properly process the ad click and charge the advertiser
It seems DDG is not that privacy focused when it comes to ads.
The submitted title was "DuckDuckGo Paid by Microsoft to not block their trackers". We've changed it now. If anyone wants to suggest a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.
I just changed from DDG to Kagi and will probably pay them once out of Beta. So far I am very happy with the search results and I believe that the next innovation in search is it not being beholden to ads. DDG is not in the place where ads will corrupt your business but should you grow and be successful, you one day will be.
>This is just about non-DuckDuckGo and non-Microsoft sites in our browsers, where our search syndication agreement currently prevents us from stopping Microsoft-owned scripts from loading
But this is exactly the problem. Sure, unlike Google DDG is not itself collecting data, and there appear to be limited tracking on MS properties, but unless I misunderstand the situation (a decent possibility) then the vast majority of the web, which are not MS sites, are still able to use MS scripts for tracking.
You are marketing a privacy-centric ecosystems of tools but your partner in one component (search) is preventing you from implementing that vision in non-search areas, so that should be clear. It should also be clear that it's still very much a search problem. The source of the limitation has search as a root cause, and a massive corporation with just as much interest in obtaining data on user browsing habits is still able to do so in some ways.
I admit this is still a better situation than Google, but you're providing an ecosystem of tools, they are inextricably linked with each other.
I don't have any proposed solution. I'm not sure there needs to be one aside from making boundaries clear. I still see significant value in your offerings. Partnering with a provider of quality search that solves some but not all privacy issues is still valuable. Each person chooses their own level of comfort & tradeoffs between product quality & privacy, and you offer what I consider to be a valuable middle ground in that range. But let's just be clear on what the middle ground is made of, though I otherwise do not judge harshly for an agreement like this.
What is the real, tangible improvement to someone's life with all this claimed privacy protection? IE, when my mom asks why she should switch from Google, what would I tell her that would actually make a difference in her life?
Just looking at the original title, I knew this was going to be a twitter post by a Brave employee posting either hearsay, or something taken out of context.
Private browsing is a small niche, and Brave does their best to drive competitors at every turn, and not by being obviously better at it. Kinda scummy, if I’m honest.
Was forever turned off Brave when they sent me direct mail advertisements (for a privacy focused browser lol). They bought my info from some list and spammed me with postcard ads.
> Just looking at the original title, I knew this was going to be a twitter post by a Brave employee posting either hearsay, or something taken out of context.
This HN submission links to a tweet by a Brave employee. However, that tweet is just a screenshot of replies to the thread at https://twitter.com/thezedwards/status/1528808759027331072 written by a researcher who doesn't appear to be a Brave employee. I think it would be better if the link were directly to the tweet by Zach Edwards instead.
Agreed. All this post did for me is make me think even less of Brave. It hasn't really changed my opinion of DDG. For the majority of DDG users (like me) who only use it for search, this changes nothing. All it does is make the Brave folks look like mudslingers.
DuckDuckGo feels like just a front for Microsoft at this point. I once looked into buying search ads on DuckDuckGo, only to discover to my horror that DDG didn't have its own ad business. DDG is entirely reliant on Microsoft's advertising system. You have to sign up for a Microsoft account to even put ads on DDG! And it's difficult — maybe impossible IIRC? — to specifically target DDG in those ads, without also targeting other MS properties.
Until DuckDuckGo separates itself from Microsoft and becomes truly independent, especially in its business model, you have to question why DDG even exists.
DDG was founded 14 years ago. I can understand initially bootstrapping on MS ads, but what's the excuse now? How about separating yourself from Microsoft first, before making a web browser that gives special exemptions to Microsoft?
I totally agree. It seems DDG exists at Microsoft's leisure and has little leverage in the relationship. In addition to serving Microsoft ads and this new special arrangement to allow Microsoft tracking, they also serve almost exclusively Bing search results. It seems like they're all but a subsidiary at this point.
As a consumer if you're happy with DDG's results this may not be relevant, but it doesn't seem like a great long-term strategy for DDG.
I consider DDG a no-bullshit less-creepy and infinitely less pushy and needy “skin” over Bing (and maybe some others) search results.
In my opinion you have:
- Google: best search results but you’re profiled to death
- Bing: okay-ish search results and you’re profiled to death
- DDG: okay-ish search results and you’re barely or not tracked at all
> Until DuckDuckGo separates itself from Microsoft and becomes truly independent, especially in its business model, you have to question why DDG even exists.
DDG exists to make money for itself. It doesn't exist to protect your privacy.
From google to github to mozilla to everything, you would think the tech idealism would have died already. People working in tech, especially the elite, are some of the slimiest and greediest people on earth. Where money goes, so go the greedy slimeballs. It's pretty much a law of nature.
So if I understand correctly, the problem is that in order to license its search index, MS requires a concession from DDG on its browser. From a customer's standpoint, these are two separate products - you can use DDG search and not use DDG's browser, or vice versa. It's only because they're made by the same company that MS has the leverage to demand this carve-out. It seems like the answer for customers is to just not use a browser made by DDG, thereby removing that leverage.
Well... how about stopping all this "Bing on the background" thing and do like Brave search and Qwant (which i'm testing as to switch away from ddg for a few months now - because of you relying in Bing) and start believing a bit more on your own index???
Why not start being a "real" search engine???
I would say it's about time!!!
(If brave and qwant can do it, so can you - man... even Gigablast does it!!!)
First, it is misleading to say our results just come from Bing. That's far from the case in actuality. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31490994 for a more detailed explanation on that.
On other search engines, they all rely somewhat on either Google's or Bing's web crawling: Qwant, Bing and Brave, Google (and Bing for images). This is easy to see as a webmaster since you don't see their crawlers much (if at all). Only Google and Bing are doing full scale web crawls. However, search is a lot more than traditional web links -- in fact it is about half now from instant answers that can come from dozens of sources and indexes (which the above comment gets into).
I'll pile on this Kagi recommendation - going on a few months I've used it exclusively. It has bangs like DDG but I find I use them less. Kagi's results are generally quite good.
Sadly DDG can no longer be trusted for being shady.
A better option would have been to let the community decide. You could have easily posted something to the effect of "One of the search engines wants us to sign an NDA and force us to allow more tracking than we are comfortable with"
Then let the community decide if we wanted a branded browser that is less secure or even if enough folks didn't care that you could still justify dev cycles on the browser.
I dropped DDG back in March when Weinberg disclosed that they were engaging in censorship and injecting bias into search results related to the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Now that we see he's sold his soul to MS for $$$, this further confirms my decision. I'm using Brave as my search engine now.
So the first question I have is "does tracking help provide better search results?"
The second question is, "Can you run a profitable search engine without target ad revenues?"
DDG lost me when they said they were going to start "curating" search responses. Give me all unadulterated results with out any bias and let me decide what to do with it.
Those are the saddest 5 words I have read all week.
Et tu, Brute?
"Partnered" is not a word one uses in connection with convicted
criminal monopolists with a history of bribery, intimidation and
fraud.
I choose my words carefully - Microsoft are gangsters who would sell
their own grandmothers for beer money. For DuckDuckGo to be associated
with them is a disgrace.
Well, the writing was on the wall as soon as they started blocking "Russian misinformation" that DDG are trying to ape the general practices of other search engines. Now, even the privacy itself is a secondary concern. Thankfully, I've already switched to Brave search last month and will likely eventually set up a SearX instance for a long term solution free of control by a corporation.
[+] [-] yegg|3 years ago|reply
This is not about search. To be clear, when you load our search results, you are completely anonymous, including ads. For ads, we actually worked with Microsoft to make ad clicks privacy protected as well. From our public ads page, "Microsoft Advertising does not associate your ad-click behavior with a user profile." This page is linked to next to every Microsoft ad that is served on our search engine (duckduckgo.com). https://help.duckduckgo.com/company/ads-by-microsoft-on-duck....
In all our browsing apps (iOS/Android/Mac) we also block third-party cookies, including those from Microsoft-owned properties like LinkedIn and Bing. That is, the privacy thing most people talk about on the web (blocking 3rd party cookies) applies here to MSFT. We also have a lot of other web protections that also apply to MSFT-owned properties as well, e.g., GPC, first-party cookie expiration, fingerprinting protection, referrer header trimming, cookie consent handling, fire button data clearing, etc.
This is just about non-DuckDuckGo and non-Microsoft sites in our browsers, where our search syndication agreement currently prevents us from stopping Microsoft-owned scripts from loading, though we can still apply our browser's protections post-load (like 3rd party cookie blocking and others mentioned above, and do). We've also been tirelessly working behind the scenes to change this limited restriction. I also understand this is confusing because it is a search syndication contract that is preventing us from doing a non-search thing. That's because our product is a bundle of multiple privacy protections, and this is a distribution requirement imposed on us as part of the search syndication agreement. Our syndication agreement also has broad confidentially provisions and the requirement documents themselves are explicitly marked confidential.
Taking a step back, I know our product is not perfect and will never be. We face many constraints: platform constraints, contractual constraints (like in this case), breakage constraints, and the evolving tracking arms race. Holistically though I believe it is the best thing out there for mainstream users who want simple privacy protection without breaking things, and that is our product vision.
Overall our app is multi-pronged privacy protection in one package (private search, web protection, HTTPS upgrading, email protection, app tracking protection for Android, and more to come), being careful (and putting in a lot of effort) to not break things while still offering protections -- an "easy button" for privacy. And we constantly work to improve its capabilities and will continue to do so, including in this case. For example, we've recently been adding bespoke third-party protections for Google and Facebook, like Google AMP/Topics/FLEDGE protection and Facebook embedded content protection.
[+] [-] zenexer|3 years ago|reply
Yes, it is. Your competitors in the privacy-centric browser space don’t have this restriction because they’re not search engines acquiring the majority of their data from an entity with a conflicting interest.
I’m inclined to blame Microsoft here; this is a nasty move on their part. However, your stance is problematic. This is a problem, and it’s a serious one. It undermines trust in a product that claims to be the bastion of privacy. And statements like this…
> Overall our app is multi-pronged privacy protection in one package (private search, web protection, HTTPS upgrading, email protection, app tracking protection for Android, and more to come), being careful (and putting in a lot of effort) to not break things while still offering protections -- an "easy button" for privacy.
…don’t help the matter. To me, that just sounds like marketing mumbo jumbo. Ultimately, if a privacy-centric browser is contractually obligated to load tracking scripts and is required to avoid disclosing that fact, I want absolutely nothing to do with either party.
[+] [-] throwAwayWFH873|3 years ago|reply
> Ad clicks are managed by Microsoft’s ad network.
> Microsoft and DuckDuckGo have partnered [..] Microsoft Advertising will use your full IP address and user-agent string so that it can properly process the ad click and charge the advertiser
It seems DDG is not that privacy focused when it comes to ads.
[0] https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/company/ad...
[+] [-] dang|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ignoramous|3 years ago|reply
You may be making it worse. Really need to dial down on click tracking (or, at least respect the dnt header).
Ex A: Searching for Cristiano Ronaldo (from Chrome Incognito but not Firefox, amusingly) returns this horrible href:
[+] [-] Beltiras|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ineedasername|3 years ago|reply
But this is exactly the problem. Sure, unlike Google DDG is not itself collecting data, and there appear to be limited tracking on MS properties, but unless I misunderstand the situation (a decent possibility) then the vast majority of the web, which are not MS sites, are still able to use MS scripts for tracking.
You are marketing a privacy-centric ecosystems of tools but your partner in one component (search) is preventing you from implementing that vision in non-search areas, so that should be clear. It should also be clear that it's still very much a search problem. The source of the limitation has search as a root cause, and a massive corporation with just as much interest in obtaining data on user browsing habits is still able to do so in some ways.
I admit this is still a better situation than Google, but you're providing an ecosystem of tools, they are inextricably linked with each other.
I don't have any proposed solution. I'm not sure there needs to be one aside from making boundaries clear. I still see significant value in your offerings. Partnering with a provider of quality search that solves some but not all privacy issues is still valuable. Each person chooses their own level of comfort & tradeoffs between product quality & privacy, and you offer what I consider to be a valuable middle ground in that range. But let's just be clear on what the middle ground is made of, though I otherwise do not judge harshly for an agreement like this.
Thank you for making great tools.
[+] [-] sitkack|3 years ago|reply
A shorter answer would have more credence.
https://youtu.be/nzNL0b4d_WY?t=148
[+] [-] dontbenebby|3 years ago|reply
What do you think the title should be yegg?
[+] [-] rhim|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blinding-streak|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] utopcell|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] appleflaxen|3 years ago|reply
Your brand is privacy, and you have betrayed your philosophical principles.
Personally: you will never regain my trust. I'm sorry this happened.
[+] [-] cptnapalm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maverick74|3 years ago|reply
https://pplware.sapo.pt/internet/duckduckgo-apanhado-a-dar-p...
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] falcolas|3 years ago|reply
Private browsing is a small niche, and Brave does their best to drive competitors at every turn, and not by being obviously better at it. Kinda scummy, if I’m honest.
[+] [-] pcmaffey|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lapcat|3 years ago|reply
This HN submission links to a tweet by a Brave employee. However, that tweet is just a screenshot of replies to the thread at https://twitter.com/thezedwards/status/1528808759027331072 written by a researcher who doesn't appear to be a Brave employee. I think it would be better if the link were directly to the tweet by Zach Edwards instead.
[+] [-] drfuzzy89|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lapcat|3 years ago|reply
Until DuckDuckGo separates itself from Microsoft and becomes truly independent, especially in its business model, you have to question why DDG even exists.
DDG was founded 14 years ago. I can understand initially bootstrapping on MS ads, but what's the excuse now? How about separating yourself from Microsoft first, before making a web browser that gives special exemptions to Microsoft?
[+] [-] nerevarthelame|3 years ago|reply
As a consumer if you're happy with DDG's results this may not be relevant, but it doesn't seem like a great long-term strategy for DDG.
[+] [-] leokennis|3 years ago|reply
In my opinion you have:
- Google: best search results but you’re profiled to death - Bing: okay-ish search results and you’re profiled to death - DDG: okay-ish search results and you’re barely or not tracked at all
Easy choice for me.
[+] [-] qiskit|3 years ago|reply
DDG exists to make money for itself. It doesn't exist to protect your privacy.
From google to github to mozilla to everything, you would think the tech idealism would have died already. People working in tech, especially the elite, are some of the slimiest and greediest people on earth. Where money goes, so go the greedy slimeballs. It's pretty much a law of nature.
[+] [-] Quarrelsome|3 years ago|reply
Its been useful for me for 14 years so idk about that.
[+] [-] rvz|3 years ago|reply
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30703172
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27399017
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839873
[+] [-] prox|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robonerd|3 years ago|reply
Because Microsoft's reputation is lower than dirt and that's probably a big part of the reason why so many people mock Bing and refuse to even try it.
[+] [-] Imnimo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maverick74|3 years ago|reply
Well... how about stopping all this "Bing on the background" thing and do like Brave search and Qwant (which i'm testing as to switch away from ddg for a few months now - because of you relying in Bing) and start believing a bit more on your own index???
Why not start being a "real" search engine???
I would say it's about time!!!
(If brave and qwant can do it, so can you - man... even Gigablast does it!!!)
[+] [-] yegg|3 years ago|reply
On other search engines, they all rely somewhat on either Google's or Bing's web crawling: Qwant, Bing and Brave, Google (and Bing for images). This is easy to see as a webmaster since you don't see their crawlers much (if at all). Only Google and Bing are doing full scale web crawls. However, search is a lot more than traditional web links -- in fact it is about half now from instant answers that can come from dozens of sources and indexes (which the above comment gets into).
[+] [-] BilalBudhani|3 years ago|reply
> if you are not paying for the product then you are the product
I have switched to Kagi [0] a paid search engine (free in beta) as my default search engine and so far it has been working out great.
[0] https://www.kagi.com
[+] [-] libraryatnight|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mo3|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darksidespoon|3 years ago|reply
A better option would have been to let the community decide. You could have easily posted something to the effect of "One of the search engines wants us to sign an NDA and force us to allow more tracking than we are comfortable with"
Then let the community decide if we wanted a branded browser that is less secure or even if enough folks didn't care that you could still justify dev cycles on the browser.
No you took the shady approach and that is sad.
[+] [-] x32n23nr|3 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/thezedwards/status/1528808759027331072
[+] [-] torrentialtom|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zerr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dutchblacksmith|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhim|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buzzwords|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yegg|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brandonjhgoogle|3 years ago|reply
Microsoft aside, does the DuckDuckGo browser provide any privacy benefits over this setup? What keeps DDG users from switching to Firefox?
[+] [-] verisimi|3 years ago|reply
https://www.presearch.org/
you can dive into google/ddg/etc's searches on the left, but its pretty decent!
[+] [-] LeoPanthera|3 years ago|reply
https://privacytests.org
[+] [-] FollowingTheDao|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elforce002|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonrandomstring|3 years ago|reply
Those are the saddest 5 words I have read all week.
Et tu, Brute?
"Partnered" is not a word one uses in connection with convicted criminal monopolists with a history of bribery, intimidation and fraud.
I choose my words carefully - Microsoft are gangsters who would sell their own grandmothers for beer money. For DuckDuckGo to be associated with them is a disgrace.
[+] [-] vimacs2|3 years ago|reply