Search engines not based in surveillance companies

I am trying to find a serach engine that are not based in surveillance companies, and I find out that is almost imposible.
duckduckgo is based in BING
startpage in Google
qwants gets form everyones like searchx…and so on
I just know archive.org that is kind of different and gigablast. But I am not sure in what they are based.

Is it true that is not anyone there trying to create a powerful search engine that is not based in surveillance?

1 Like

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

2 Likes

Though not specifically an answer to your question, a resource I use is https://searchengine.party/. Good info about a lot of search engines; country jurisdiction, security level, logging, filtering, et.al.

It also says, “For more comparisons between Searx instances, please visit searx.space.”

1 Like

isnt that searx get the results from google, bing and so on?

I dont mean just surveillance, but I means that they use the results from them

I can see that Duckduckgo is doing contracts with Microsoft for usings their results services, that swisscows uses duckduckgo results that at the same time is BING, so my questionis , why is that duckduckgo, in this case , is not creating their unik search engine?

1 Like

Searx technically speaking, you could set it up to use bing results, and so on even Google, but the difference is you can go in and decide what results are prioritized in the results in the settings within Searx that might be what you are looking for. I’d suggest you try searx, or someones instance of it and go in the settings and configure it. You can even say, don’t give me any of Googles results if you really wanted to it doesn’t speciifcally relie on any search engine, because it’s really up to you to decide what it is doing for you personally.

Also Searx is open source so again, there no profit to be made from it so it’s more trusting then say Google, or bing for privacy and security.

I can’t answer why duckduckgo does what they do, I haven’t used that search engine of late, it use to be my defualt for the last few years but I recently started hopping around again myself. Perhaps it’s because they know that it would be expensive to make a search engine as big as Google or bing, so they probally said, lets save a bit of money (so they could make more of it) and use an already astablished engine. Not saying that’s true, that would be my guess though, but it’s not officially confirmed that that’s why they don’t make their own.

3 Likes

In attempting to answer that question myself, I ended up using Mojeek. They run their own crawler and do not depend on any of the other major search engines for their results (however, their image results do come from Pixabay). The details of how I came to that conclusion are available at https://www.stoutner.com/switching-from-startpage-to-mojeek/. There is also a bit of background at https://www.stoutner.com/requirements-for-a-search-engine-to-be-included/.

3 Likes

Then theres the question of, are this independent search engines nearly as usable as bigger (or search engines based on bigger) search engines.

Where do you draw the line? (for each person it will differ) Start 100℅ fresh, go half way and use a search engine based on a big search engine or just use a big search engine.

Mojeek

Mojeek is OK, but it throws errors too often (using Tor). I favor a round robin or random rotation to different search sites, but haven’t seen an automatic way. So I do it manually. Bottom line though, I prefer links from “good” websites.

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

DDG has a lot of cr**ap inside them. Moreover they have heavy analytics and upselling. They are in US, so there is no doubt of them NOT lying upfront.
Swisscow does store like Metager does now. Too bad, privacy is a joke to humans, so called humans.

Hi opensourcefan2016, I’m glad you’re a fan.

I hope you receive my critique of your comment regarding corporations having policies they “legally cannot lie about”. Please recall that Google no longer has the policy “don’t be evil”.

Google has not, nor have any other corporations implemented a blockchain product designed to protect end-users as far as I can tell. They’re all just pump and dumps, imaginary computer money, self-centered fly-by-night get-rich-quick schemes.

FOR EXAMPLE:

  1. Archive.org MUST be considered evil since they haven’t bothered to put their records verifiably immutably on a Blockchain or even have checksums/diffs of any kind.
  2. Same with Google, FB, YT, Twit, and every company out there. Our news, votes, dicpix, texts, profiles, history and location data is still not stored in a blockchain? Wtf is everybody doing?

None of these company’s solutions can be trusted with 1% of the intuitive human understanding you have for a book, radio broadcast, mountain, or house. You don’t expect to come home and half your house is replaced with YouTube saying “these bedrooms have been deleted because fuck you whatchu gonna do go cry bitch.”

But that’s what archive.org and google.com said to Satoshi, and hence freedom for all global citizens. How is it possible they could simply disappear from reality the concept of Satoshi’s forums being hosting on Satoshi’s website, bitcoin.org??? HELLO?! WHERE WERE THE BITCOIN FORUMS LOCATED? On bitcoin.org or the unaffiliated copycat competitor site no one liked called bitcointalk.org? Here’s a hint: anybody who ever mentions bitcointalk.org as being relevant or affiliated or involved or participating or collaborating with the bitcoin.org community in any way what-so-ever prior to Sept. 8th 2014, the day Satoshi was jailed robbed and exiled, has just outted themselves as working with the bad guys. Think about it.

1.5 million forum posts on bitcoin.org up through 2014 and around 50,000 on the unaffiliated bitcointalk.org simply cannot be covered up, disappeared or refuted. Any person, publication or archive.org claiming something other than bitcoin.org/forums existed before Sept. 2014 is digging their own grave. I’m sure the evidence exists on the dusty hard drives, burned optical media and Pentium 3 laptops in cardboard boxes in the back of many college professors’ closets.

They’ve probably been bribed and endorse large anonymous financial transactions as being mandatory for success.

I personally can’t think of any use case for anonymity during the application of power other that crime/evil.

Thanks for your concern and advice.

Rant continues next.

(I gotta find somewhere to put this crap, btw, lovely forum software ya’ll got here.)

Also missing is all Satoshi’s software versions, explanatory documentation, specs, faqs, RFC, pdfs, and correspondence on sourceforge, mailing lists, IRC, and his whitepaper revisions v2 - v11, always released inside every software archive, on both mailing lists, announced on IRC, downloadable on bitcoin.org and sourceforge, and in SVN, and other websites. OH, and always burned into the blockchain, how bout .dat? Doesn’t ring a bell huh? Not a single email either from the the years prior to release spent discussing the idea of WebCred and BitCoin with the 500 cipherphreaks like Hal, Adam, and Wei on the other, friendlier mailing list. Also prior to 2009, the whole real life fable of the dragon tyrant that everyone collaborated on to fight back against a majority of selfish miners who chose to take something like 30% transaction fees from every transfer. So, all the good guys, devs, investors, and everyone on Satoshi’s forums fought back against the unfriendly uncooperative people over at the tiny “bitcointalk” competitor website, by conspiring to gain a 51% majority and then push out a software patch preventing any such majority open source software hostage situation from happening in the future.

Satoshi did not reset the blockchain at that time because… why would he do that after going through all the trouble with the group effort and the software patches? If his team was going to restart the Blockchain, they could have done that at any time to fix the greedy fee problem. But if the bitcoins were not worth good money back then, no one would have cared about fees. But they were worth money. Worth millions in $USD.

You think nobody every tried to archive/mirror anything about Bitcoin during 2006, 2007, 2008? Nobody thought to backup any emails or software version control from Sourceforge? Gavin just issued a one-liner (on bitcointalk obviously because Satoshi would have freaked) saying, everything on “Sourceforge was lost.”. Hmm.

I’ll tell you what happened. Satoshi’s team fixed currency. Implemented microtransactions and zero cost encrypted distributed ad-hoc designer contracts, communications, reputation, identity, property, social web of trust, NFTs, iterative digital unique tokens, zero-knowledge proofs, universal basic income, transparent governance, Proof of Stake (proof of what you did not proof of wealth hording), deprecating the profit motive moving towards a post scarcity society by weaving collaboration and self-improving algorithms to benefit each other, etc… Satoshi’s concept solves evil secret power structures and promotes individual life freedom, balance and common sense.

1 Like

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

Ya see, Is this a good time to ask if anyone has experience with YACY - peer to peer, decentralized, distributed hash tables, all the buzz words?

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.