ITT: Search Engines

Google:
https://encryped.google.com

File: Qwant Lite.png (73KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1366x768px

>>56524862
Qwant Lite is pretty comfy senpai.

https://lite.qwant.com/

DuckDuckGo.

other than DDg, you're screwed

>>56524862
Which Unown is that?

File: startpage.jpg (780KB, 1883x987px) Image search: [Google]

780KB, 1883x987px

>>56524862
Pretty comfy desu...

Self hosted searx at memesearch.sockspls.com

>>56524880
you realise that all google searches are over https by default, right...?

Why would you not use google as a search engine?(legit question not trolling)

>>56525649
Seriously?...

>>56525649
Are you really that fucking stupid? (legit question not trolling)

>>56525745
Yes

>>56525799
You will never get a real answer. They are just bitter that Google is gaining more power over the Internet as time ticks on.

It is a valid concern, though. Having one company hold so much control over a tool like the internet gives them very real power. I'm still waiting on them to fumble like the other software giants, though.

>>56525649
Google does not respect your privacy and is in bed with nsa.

>>56524862
DuckDuckGo

File: images.png (9KB, 619x238px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 619x238px

>>56524862
Bing master race here

>>56525867
>It is a valid concern
While valid, it has no basis in reality and is paranoia and what ifs.

Any negative impact they have on websites traffic or advertising is a moot point because they are the only reason that website has traffic in the first place.

>>56525799
In that case, allow me to answer your question with a personal anecdote that I think a majority of Internet users can relate to.

Just recently I've started being more conscious of my presence online and my own personal privacy on the Internet, not just from Google but from absolutely everything. So I've taken initiative and started installing several privacy-oriented add ons for my web browser, one of which includes Self-destructing Cookies. If you are unfamiliar with this add-on, the gist of it is pretty self-explanatory. It deletes cookies based on certain guidelines (I have mine set to delete all cookies under a certain domain after I close the tab of the domain that set those cookies, or after 5 minutes if nothing reads or writes to those specific cookies).

Anyways, I thought it was a neat little plugin and it was just what I was looking for. Well, after having had this plugin for a while now, I started to notice something peculiar with Youtube specifically. Even though I delete my cookies after each time I close Youtube and without ever signing in to my Google account, Youtube can still recommend videos to me based on what I've watched previously even though that should be impossible because the only way they should be able to associate my browser with any of their data about my video history is if they could store cookies. Spooky right?

The way they do this is through a technique called "browser fingerprinting". They analyse certain attributes of your browser via Javascript typically and are able to uniquely identify you out of all of their users based on things such as your User-Agent, screen size, certain plugins you have installed, the order which your browser sends certain HTTP parameters, etc.

Anyways, my point is this. Why would you trust a company to respect your privacy if they're blatantly exerting every effort to NOT respect your privacy? Of course, it's all a moot point if you don't care in the first place, but you really should.

>>56525973
>>56525649

Also, if you are wanting to know more about browser fingerprinting, I suggest checking https://panopticlick.eff.org out. It's a decent benchmark for how identifiable your browser and its settings are to websites you visit.

>They avoid google
>They type google provided captchas in on their favorite Indonesian underwater basketweaving BBS

File: Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 23.59.19.png (40KB, 614x231px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 614x231px

>>56526001
so, how do I fix this? using firefox

>>56526040
Your best bet would be to whitelist Javascript only on sites that you trust. Javascript is essential for websites to be able to uniquely identify you, so without it you become nearly anonymous aside from your IP address (VPNs/Tor proxies exist for a reason). It wouldn't hurt to spoof your User-Agent as well. I have a plugin that changes my User-Agent randomly every 5 minutes.

>>56526077
well thanks dude, I'll be definitely researching more about this bullshit

>>56526147
Yep, no problem chummer. There's a lot more to find down the rabbit hole.

Sometimes I use Startpage or Google

>>56524862
Google and Yandex

https://start.duckduckgo.com

>>56525102
Are they still using Bing's algorithm?

>>56525236
its slow for me. Halp

what's the point if they all use google's results?

I miss the pre-2000 google when you could do an exact search for something like
>+".mozilla/firefox/"
and you would get results related to the mozilla profile dir on unix
instead of the generic www.mozilla.org answers you get now

in retrospect I was a bit hasty in cheering on the death of altavista, lycos, webcrawler and the others..

DuckDuckGo
desu I dont care about privacy
I just want the !bangs

>>56527501

You have to change the settings to use the closest available servers. If you're in Europe, EU. If NA, US.

File: 1404543746521.png (23KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x275px

>>56526806
American girls don't know what Yandex is.

File: 1468181456826.gif (134KB, 470x462px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 470x462px

>>56525124
It uses stupid ugly duck as logo, cant' use shit like that. Searx (or yacy) ftw.

>>56524862
Prefer startpage, tried searx but the results were sometimes very unrelated.

>>56524862
All search engines log your searches and sell the data to anyone who buys.

I just avoid google because they've gone too far with the data mining and they actively censor results.

>>56528327
Well they should checkout my Yandex.Dick

>>56528668
What do you use, then?

Google is just an add engine now