I want to avoid Google for most searches. Which should I switch

>>62100498
rutracker.org
torrent the whole internet

>>62100498
Startpage or something else. Duck duck go is probably botnet.

>>62100498
a searx instance hosted by yourself/a group you trust. just stay away from cuckcuckgo, they will sell your data faster then even google. startpage seems okay

Don't use DDG or Bing. Both use single search engine, Google and Bing.

Use meta search engine to get around search vacuums more effectively.

>>62100498
I use dickdickgo.
Tor trusts it so why shouldn't I?

Who the fuck still recommends DDG?

Someone incinerate these morons.

>>62100498
use startpage, it still gives the best search results, because they internally use google for their searches, but google doesn't get to track you -> no money for them

>using cuckcuckgo
They sell data mang. Look how they use redirects in their links instead of using the real link

>>62100498
i like https://www.qwant.com/
It gives better results than DDG

I went from opera and duckduckgo to waterfox and qwant

But I'm not sure if a bit more of privacy is worth the slow shit

>>62100498
qwant or duckduckgo are your only viable choices for a modern feature rich search engine.

unless you want faggot ugly old linux chink pad circle jerk tier shit.

Ditch Chrome and Firefox first and use Brave. Then switch your search engine to Qwant or Yandex. Use StartPage as a last resort (even though it is great as a search engine as much as I hate to admit that).

>>62101192
What's wrong with startpage? Been hearing people speak badly of them lately but never got any details.

>>62101215
It's based on Google. So you're not really degoogling if you use it, although it is leagues better in terms of privacy than vanilla Google.

>>62101215
>>62101278
It's basically a proxy, in a way. You access Google results, while Google can not gather your IP and track you.

As such, you won't get "better", targeted results, but will avoid "the botnet".

alright so vivaldi, waterfox or brave?

File: 1459026673633.jpg (266KB, 905x881px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 905x881px

>>62100498
I don't trust Duck Duck Go not only because they sell my data but also because they have a shitty logo and name for a search engine.

>>62101379
>sell my data
Link?

File: 1502607188955.png (657KB, 1701x8000px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 1701x8000px

>>62101389

>>62100498
Ecosia

>>62101327
BRAVE

>>62101440
brave is shit for PC, it's fine on phone though

>>62101400
So...

DDG is owned by a guy, whose previous businesses were set up to explicitly collect people's information, which those people knowingly and eagerly provided themselves.

DDG also displays adds.

DDG, just like absolutely any other website on the Internet, sees your IP address, when you connect to it.

Solid proof, Anon! :^)

File: 1498992574642.png (245KB, 550x600px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 550x600px

>>62101469
>DDG is owned by a guy, whose previous businesses were set up to explicitly collect people's information, which those people knowingly and eagerly provided themselves.

How is that not a red flag for you? Are you mentally challenged?

>>62101593
How is japmoot not a red flag for you? Are you mentally challenged?

Why are you even here if you care that much??

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-26 at 21.23.13.png (334KB, 1826x1116px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1826x1116px

>>62100498
why not use them all?

g term -> google search
s term -> startpage search
d term -> ddg search

.. you get the point

DDG is almost as bad as google for privacy (In fact, it was worse when it was just released, they were selling data to third parties, think they stopped after people got mad)

A good privacy-conscious search engine doesn't really exist

>>62101440
>>62101457

alright, so waterfox or vivaldi?

>>62101662
what about startpage.com? They get the good google results without infringing your privacy

>>62101593
He monetized his old businesses by explicitly collecting and selling info. He is monetizing his current one by selling ads.

What's wrong?

>>62101670
ungoogled chromium!!!!!

>>62101623
>no u
This is an anonymous website, I don't post my personal info here.
Unlike you I don't have to rely on placebos to protect my privacy.
This site also doesn't have a shitty name or logo like DDG.

>>62100886
>Redirects
I use umatrix that blocks redirects and im not seeing any redirects on ddg

>>62101662
>they stopped after people got mad

Lying on the Internet just like that. At least you've added I "think".

Use Startpage
DDG still sells your search data just anonymously

>>62101698
Because they aren't any, unless you click a link that is clearly marked as an "AD".

>>62101697
Placebos son, I have fucking windows and android and all the other hot buttnets.

>>62101709
Reality is we are mostly fucked on all sites unless they are open source and no one will be there are zero garantee you aren't being logged.
I'm still transitioning from moderate Google usage to nothing, changing mail and probably going lineage without gapps.
For me I think, the first and foremost matter is to curb Google with it going mental on all internet. Distribute your services don't use all from same company. If you use Gmail+ android+Google+YouTube you are basically giving it all to same company. If for some reason they decide to fuck you you are fucked on many fronts.

I'm just doing most with unatrix gads all blocked + deleting cookies + random agents

>>62101406
Seconding this, it's the only one I've found with decent search results compared to google and doesn't look like it was made in 2005.

>>62101688
Outdated as fuck

also DDG gives shitty ass results compared to Startpage, because DDG uses Bing and Yandex results.

I kinda miss that Disconnect Search doesn't have Google on there anymore

>>62100739
Stop using ddg, it's botnet.

>>62102768
Just because you say it, does not make it so.

File: 1502483560669.png (2MB, 1701x8000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1701x8000px

>>62102788
Oh yeah, don't mind me. I'm only basing my statement off evidence. Fucking retard.

>>62102835
This very image was already posted in this very thread and debunked.

Smarten up, brosef.

>>62102897
Then post the other thread.

>>62102835
>evidence
This is a retarded image. It mentions a 4chan post that doesn't even cite anything. It says the owner owned a site, which was not named by the way, that asked for a phone number or email, which they don't even know which one.

How the hell is hearsay evidence?

>>62102900
>>62102897
Nvm, reread your post. Where was it debunked?

Qwant or Bing.

>>62102962
>>62101469
not really debunked but there

Just use searx dude

baidu.com

>>62102897
>>62102955
For VPNs and email providers, the only thing you can really go by is how much you trust the person or company that owns it. That's why so many people on /g/ recommend cock.li (not for fucking bank accounts) even though the owner of it could easily read each and every email that passes through it. The same is true for search engines. You have to trust them when they say they're not selling your data behind your back. You're not going to get solid evidence here otherwise it would have already caused a shitstorm on the internet and no one would be using those services. What that image is trying to demonstrate is that the person who owns DuckDuckGo has a shady past and may not be doing what they say they're doing. It's entirely up to you if you want to use DuckDuckGo, a service run by a man who has sold data in his past. There are other services ran by reasonble people who haven't done this and those are the ones we recommend. If you still insist on using it, that's fine. It's no worse than Google, but I can't imagine why you would consider using this if your goal is privacy.

>>62103158
>a service run by a man who has sold data in his past

Doesn't mean they intertwine. I don't use DDG but I wouldn't say it's shady if he ran a site where he did use personal info before. I want to know how DDG operates. Is he the only one with access to it? Is DDG only run by him or as a team, and if he even has access to logs or who within DDG has access to logs if there are any. If he right now is a part of DDG but doesn't have access to logs, I wouldn't be that worried, unless he has some behind the scenes shit, kinda like how AT&T has that one NSA room in their building. That would be shady. It's not he did any of the shit on the other site without anyone knowing.

>>62103239
Again, it's entirely your call when it comes to picking these services. I don't believe that anyone has the right to sell someone else's information and I wouldn't trust mine to someone who does. You're not going to get the answers to those other questions, so you'll just have to make a judgement based on what you know now.

>>62100498
there is only 2 major usable indexes, google and bing
yes some search sites give you some privacy features, but these two are the ones that decide what you get to see when you search for things on the internet

File: 1435671704547.jpg (35KB, 387x461px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 387x461px

>>62102897
>debunked.

>>62103589
I don't see a counter-argument. Did you forget it?

>>62103626
>I don't see a counter-argument
Can't really make a counter argument if there is no argument in the first place.

You fags are so paranoid. I'll continue to enjoy my localized searches as they are incredibly convenient.

>>62103663
Anon referred to it being debunked. Find the reference. Oh, here it is:
>>62101469
>>62101623
>>62101686

Now offer your counter-argument. No more beating around the bush. Just fucking do it.
https://youtu.be/FPAJtvy1uL0

>>62103719
You call "nu uh that doesn't count" and "whataboutism" arguments?

>>62103769
Back up your assertions that these are "nu uh" and "whataboutism" arguments. Otherwise be dismissed.

I've been using Ecosia, it comes with Waterfox and seems good enough.

>>62103912
Qué cosa?

>>62103983
?

>>62103912
FUCK trees

>>62103808
None of the posters debunked anything from the image that was posted, all they did was justify collecting data and selling it.
They stated that the owner of 4chan also collected data, that somehow justifies DDG's owner selling data, last I checked Japmoot isn't the owner of a search engine that claims to respect your privacy.

How are you going to debunk that DDG literally states:
>We also save searches
>your search history is safe with us because it cannot be tied to you in any way
>Similarly, we may add an affiliate code to some eCommerce sites (e.g. Amazon & eBay) that results in small commissions being paid back to DuckDuckGo when you make purchases at those sites.
>and the only information that is collected from this process is product information

How are you going to debunk those "wild claims" that are copy pasted from DDG's private policy page.

>>62103808
Dude don't even waste your energy typing back to that fool. He's either trolling (most likely) or he's drowning himself in confirmation bias. Either way, he's not worth your time. Let the ego go and ignore him

>>62101039
Jesus christ, this is worse than botnet. I regret clicking on this fucking cancer

>>62104122
Now you are using proper argumentation. Well done. You have the upper hand now.

Glad I could help.

>>62104122
>that are copy pasted from DDG's private policy page.

the image you posted has been heavily edited (obviously) in mspaint type program. Because it's an edited image, you can't take what it says as fact.

You can prove your point still by linking us directly to the privacy policy discrepancy or whatever it is you're claiming. Otherwise, gtfo. You should know better than to blindly trust an mspaint image on 4chan... good lord

File: 1456423261520.jpg (93KB, 1179x883px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1179x883px

>>62104173
Where are those debunks anon? All I get in return is passive aggressiveness.

>>62104202
I was never the anon who claimed anything was debunked. I just took issue with your poor argumentation style.

>>62104173
>>62104214
a to the u to the t i s m

>>62104199
https://duckduckgo.com/privacy

>>62104214
I do the same thing. I don't like DuckDuckGo and I'm not interested in defending them at all. I'm more interested in anons using critical thinking skills and backing up their claims (however ridiculous) with evidence.

I play devil's advocate all the time on here because nobody knows how to backup what they say. It's sad

>>62104238
I control+f'd and everything that image is still present in their policy. Good job. Next time you might consider linking directly to the source instead of presenting mspaint as evidence. It'll be more believeable

File: file.png (119KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1366x768px

>>62101670
Waterfox

>>62104261
wwoaaa your smart

File: hankhill-yup.png (100KB, 310x322px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 310x322px

>>62104294
If by smart you mean I require evidence to believe something, then yeah I guess I'm pretty "smart"

>>62101670
Waterfox is open source.

>>62104261
I do this too, it's like
>>62104226
said.

>>62104311
how do i become a literal genius like you

File: 1493205538431.gif (4MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 500x281px

>>62104214
>>62104261
>>62104287

>>62104261
I feel this has been a part of the nature of the beast that is 4chan for quite some time. We're all playing schizophrenic games for all kinds of disconnected reasons because there's no shame in being an autismal faggot.

File: 1486835330543.jpg (23KB, 275x284px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 275x284px

>>62104347
>someone makes a claim
>people ask for evidence
>person provides evidence
>people say thanks, that's all I needed
>people who asked for evidence get made fun of

>>62104330
drink milk and lift weights, mostly squats. the key to big brains is a thicc ass

>>62104368
>people who ask for evidence get made fun of
They wouldn't be if they weren't splurting their autism all over this thread. Everybody thinks that they're right when arguing, otherwise they wouldn't be arguing. You always look like a fucking idiot when you start sperging about how smart you think you are.

>>62104368
Who are you quoting?

File: 1327543359313.jpg (34KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x480px

>>62100541

russian moon rune website obviously seems much more safe.

>>62104732
The smile of that guy is a gift from god.

>>62104642
>>>/jp/

>>62100498
>not using yahoo