Yes thank you, please make a market out of privacy!

edit: I should probably say, please prove that privacy respecting markets are viable, I'm not suggesting the commoditisation of everything, lol.

Should DDG become ultra-successful, how long until they start making concessions to privacy to increase revenue and growth? After all not so long ago Google themselves were "the good guys" and we were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Turns out that "Do No Evil" only really works until it starts clashing with "Make More Money".

If I recall DDG doesn’t even use cookies. So they’re showing ads based solely on the search terms, which personally I’m ok with as long as it doesn’t clutter the page too much. Showing me ads when I’m in a discovery mindset is ok and is less intrusive; it’s way worse when you’re in a consumption mindset and the ads are just obnoxious (I’m looking at you, YouTube ads).

I gave up trying to be too optimistic about DDG and use Google with no javascript and no cookies saved on the domain in my browser.

My problem with search is a user one. Not an ethical one. When I search for something I want the best results. I don't care if some cute furry animal had to be sacrificed in the production of this utility.

Btw, DDG has a settings button hidden somewhere that allows you to tweak a few settings and save cookies if you wanted.

Should this happen then DDG will know better than anyone that this just puts a target on their back to be replaced by the next privacy respecting search engine, and the cycle continues afresh.

I mean it's not as nefarious as it could be since they are actually privacy focused, but this blend of advice and advertisement is rubbing me the wrong way

Sure, DDG might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but so is Mozilla. They sell out every FF user who does not change default settings. This must be a significant number of users, because the online ad services company pays millions to Mozilla for that "service". That means heaps of queries coming from FF are "feeding the ecosystem".

Honest question: do they? What evidence supports the assertion that they do try? I haven't seen any story suggesting Mozilla is trying to get away from that model of funding Firefox.

> "(how to get people to pay for a browser?)"

The Thunderbird email client (formerly maintained by Mozilla) switched to being independent from Mozilla and asking for donations; so far they are successful. Donations are now sustaining a team of 15, thanks to yearly 2.3 M$ donations [1], and they keep hiring.

"A team of 15 isn't remotely enough to sustain Firefox", you may say, and you'd be right. But then, if Thunderbird is able to find enough donation money for 15, what would Firefox (who is way more popular than Thunderbird) be able to score if it found the courage to make its case to its users, and ask for money? Could it afford a staff of 150? More?

[1] https://groups.google.com/g/tb-planning/c/-jbmYvYdX1g , https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/m9td33/thunderb...

For starters, they could let people donate towards browser development.

If a newspaper or online magazine had traditional ads that were embedded in the page as static images (no distracting video please) then I'd leave my ad blocker off.

True, those are not targeted ads, they are sponsored content, but I wouldn’t even bother setting up my adblocker, had they made them less annoying.

To me though, sure, show me ads, fine, whatever, but don't build them around a profile of me to try to manipulate me directly based on my potential interests and behaviour. Any time I can disable any "personalisation" of ads, I do.

I think there's a bit of a language barrier. What advertisers mean when they say "personalized" or "relevant" is not the same as what their audience means when they use the same words. I find advertisers often mean "what you looked at but didn't buy," but I think most consumers mean "what is likely to interest me."

My opinion is, if DDG is showing me some ads based on my search keywords (which is sort personalised) so they can make some money out of their not-so-bad service? Fine by me.

I'm content to live In a search world when I type "how to do xxxxx" an add for a software company that provides xxxxx as a service is the top two or three results. I'm not content with getting cold calls from salesmen 1 to 2 hours after I type in a search for gartner magic quadrant xxxxx. (this happens all the time)

if the ads served are keyword based on the current search, and clearly marked as add, I'm ok with it.

I even click on the ddg ads if the seem relevant on purpose, because I know it generates them revenue. I go out of my way to click on anything I know is a Google ad.

It seems Mozilla uses it a lot