[yegg]

We actually have, as part of https://natlawreview.com/article/nad-examines-privacy-statem... "The NAD found the claims supported by the evidence which included a third-party expert confirming that the company’s measures (encryption, tracker blocking, and private searches) protect against the three largest categories of personal data collectors."

In terms of money, as the article notes we have 3% of U.S. search market share. That's a lot if you consider how much Google makes. Now, in part because of our search privacy, we make way way less, but it is still enough to be profitable. That said, that means we could be way way more profitable if we tracked people, which we don't.

[nunobrito]

You must be kidding, right? The article you mention is the same as claiming that a car is "secure" because you look at it from the outside and base the audit on their own statements.

That is not a serious review.

There is no way you are supporting +300 people per month, which equates to a minimum of 36 million USD per year without even counting infrastructure expenses, fancier salaries for management and associated costs for business building.

By all means feel free to present more detailed documentation about your expenses and sources of income. I'll wait, will even grab a chair to avoid getting tired after waiting a few more years.

All dodgy.

[yegg]

Back of the envelope for you: Google does about $200B in search revenue, about half in the U.S. (so $100B). We have about 3% markt share in the U.S., which would equate to about $3B in Google monetization. Now, we make way way less than Google per search, in large part due to our privacy policy, but 10x less is still on the order of 300M per year. So, you can see how we can easily take in more than 36M per year.

Also, NAD is a very serious review process as NAD refers any unsubstantiated claims directly to the FTC. Lots of evidence, vetted by a third-party.