Invalid filename.
from Codeberg.org
DuckDuckGo is a privacy adversary and has no merit for Swiso endorsement. Swiso's mission:
*"Ethical, easy-to-use and privacy-conscious alternatives to well-known software"*
DuckDuckGo is neither privacy-respecting nor ethical. [Rationale](http://techrights.org/2020/07/02/ddg-privacy-abuser-in-disguise)\*. DDG is also hard to use relative to other alternatives because there is no caching links or proxy links in the search results. So when a privacy-abuser appears in the search results (which is frequent with DDG), manual effort is required to visit the result through a proxy.
There are currently 4 endorsements. DuckDuckGo [and Qwant](https://codeberg.org/swiso/website/issues/138) must go. They perniciously lead people to work against the Swiso mission. It's an embarrassment for Swiso to endorse them and harms Swiso's credibility. If someone thinks two search alternatives isn't enough, there are far better options than DDG & Qwant on the [attached infograph](https://codeberg.org/attachments/248b4a4c-101d-47b2-be3f-7c1ffa7ffc88). (Note there are also some terrible search engines on the diagram to highlight the bad players so pay attention)
(*) correction on the rational: DDG has recently switched from AWS to MS for cloud services.
Issue https://codeberg.org/swiso/website/issues/137 sufficiently exposed all the problems with DuckDuckGo but it did not sufficiently correct the harmful endorsement. DuckDuckGo is wholly ***unfit*** for Swiso endorsement under Swiso's current mission statement. You can't ethically recommend a service that's less ethical than Google as an alternative to Google, and it's particularly pernicious to do so when there are so many unmentioned alternatives that actually are more ethical than Google search.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊)
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the