Qwant is infamous in France for having made big claims and failed repeatedly. It was for the longest time just a wrapper around Bing, while claiming otherwise.

I can confirm this. I was already cautious with Qwant because it was, from the very beginning, the worst search engine I've ever seen.

That isn't the case, the engine is quite capable. Have been using for 10 years as replacement for google. Only stopped recently because any AI is now better at answering most technical questions.

How was it more capable then google?

It isn't more capable than Google.

It is certainly more private than Google and capable enough to answer my daily questions. For me it is important to reduce as much as possible the entrapment from google services.

Ecosia is a non-profit, so being profitable is not their mission. Each month they publish a breakdown of their expenses and donations. In January they got around 4 million euros, so I’d say they are certainly successful at what they do.

> Ecosia is a non-profit, so being profitable is not their mission.

So was OpenAI, but people develop amazingly flexible morals when someone throws big $$$ at them. Not saying this will happen to Ecosia, I wish them all the best, but at this point I have zero trust in promises and statements like "we'll never do X".

Again, that's not to say they are unscrupulous, they might have the best intentions of "never doing X", but such promises are extremely difficult to keep if they ever become a huge success.

This blog post briefly explains their legal setup:

https://blog.ecosia.org/trees-not-profits/

They don't just have intentions, they have legal requirements. It's fine to be cynical, but if we just assume that everything is always terrible, there is no incentive to not be terrible.

And how reliable are those legal requirements? One has to be very naive to believe that the law is some sort of ironclad constant of the universe. For someone with money, the law is simply an equation. It can be bypassed, molded or broken - the only balance is the money, the payoff. Did the law stop HSBC from laundering cartel money? Did the law stop Wirecard? When enough money is involved, people just look at it as a risk/reward or cost/payoff.

I'm optimistic about this effort. I have no doubts about their current intentions. But I'm not so naive as to believe that just because something is illegal right now, that this is some sort of bulletproof barrier against shenanigans in the future. So many companies have made promises like this, and so many of them amounted to nothing in the end. I'd simply rather believe them by their word than have to rely on these kinds of paper thin guarantees.

Are there differences between what non-profits are allowed to do in Germany vs the US?

I'm assuming that German has stricter rules, but I wouldn't know.

It doesn't matter what the law allows unfortunately. If enough money is involved, everything is possible. Law is what people make it, and people can be bought and sold. It's not some fundamental physical constant of the universe.

This is why statements like this feel like empty posturing (even if the intentions are genuine and good).

This is true but Civil law seems to be bit less "flexible" than Common law.

This isn't a civil law vs common law thing.

It's a US vs sensible countries thing.

Then why have laws in the first place? Seriously, that's just self-defeating cynicism.

I haven't looked into Ecosia, but they seem to be a GmbH, a limited liability company in Germany. This allows a lot of wiggle room!

A foundation (that's another legal form in Germany, but note that the name "foundation" itself is not protected.) would probably be a better alternative, but due to the way foundations (the legal form) are designed, they are hard to setup and maintain, i.e. expensive. Anyway, Ecosia is also part of a growing movement for steward-ownership that's promoting a new legal form called "Gesellschaft mit gebundenen Vermögen" (GmgV, Company with bound capital). The German department of justice is involved, and while this does not promise a speedy delivery, there are drafts and it does show attention on the highest level.

Let's cheer those people on than lazily dismiss them.

>Then why have laws in the first place? Seriously, that's just self-defeating cynicism.

I guess that in the spirit of a the previous post, the obvious answer will be something like "having laws is to bind them, the money-less serfs, not to put any hindrance on us the masters and possessors of everything."

I'm not dismissing them at all, but I have become much more cynical about the outcomes of starry eyed promises like this. Again, I have no doubts about their intentions, I have doubts about those intentions staying the same over time. I have doubts about intentions staying just as pure when VC money enters the game.

Let's take a step back here: do you seriously believe that the law applies equally to everyone? That it's unbending and a bullet proof backstop?

My views are definitely more cynical than when I was younger, but this was shaped by decades of witnessing the erosion in the rule of law. It's obvious that there's two kinds of law: one for those with wealth and power and one for those without. And the law is very malleable for the former group - in fact it is usually shaped to benefit them. They only have to straddle the line to avoid making it too obvious. You don't have to go far either: wasn't it in Germany where they weaponized the police and the justice system to harass journalists who exposed the Wirecard scheme?

So no, I'm not going to put much faith in statements like "oh we are legally not allowed to do X", because that just means "we are not likely to do it under the current circumstances". You have to be exceptionally naive to believe that a sufficiently motivated investor would be unable to find a convenient loophole if required.

I guess this is also a cultural difference. In Germany, there are obviously still people who believe that the law is some sort of serious warranty for people to keep their promise. I'm afraid this is again only applicable to those without money and power. I'm sure the German legal system will bear down with it's full might on any small time company or enterprise that breaks the law. I have very serious doubts about them doing this for the big boys. Again, we just need to look at Wirecard...

To reiterate, this is not a judgement on this effort or their motives. It is simply a statement about the current world, where all over the globe we see case after case of unbridled greed and everything eventually being beholden to more money.

So you seem to think the struggle is already forfeit. That's your choice, but, you know, not fighting means you already lost.

But things are not lost. The very example you cite, Wirecard, despite the attempts to silence the Financial Times (of London, BTW. Wirecard "weaponized" the British justice system) in 2019, has been charged by the German regulator BaFin in 2020 and the scandal is slowly but surely worked out. As of today, three top managers have been sentenced in civil processes to pay damages, 2 more cases are currently heard, 21 more are investigated, and 11 have been exonerated. And this is just civil/trade law, criminal law is also prosecuted. Braun is held in custody, the hearings are ongoing. Marsalek is on the run and presumably hiding in Russia. Erffa and Bellenhaus are about to receive their sentences. Steidl and Knoop are about to have their first hearings this year. Those are all C-level managers.

Could this all go faster? It sure would be nice. But this is better than what you seem to think what is happening. Furthermore, this is all orthogonal to Ecosia's pledge.

I'm not talking about the struggle, you seem intent on arguing against a strawman. I'm all for the struggle. What I don't believe in is promises like "we are legally not allowed to do X". People are legally not allowed to drive faster than the speed limit. People are legally not allowed to launder money. People are legally not allowed to murder each other.

In corporate law, what is legally allowed or not allowed is irrelevant at the end of the day. The only thing that is relevant is how much money is one willing to throw at the problem, which just depends on how much money they expect to make from it.

Ecosia is doing great work! I'm happy they are doing it and I'm rooting for them. But I consider it naive to believe that their intentions will stay good purely on the basis that it would be illegal for them to do otherwise. This is a completely meaningless protection or backstop in my view.

Just look at what Musk and Trump are doing in the US. They get away with bald faced market manipulation, front running, pump & dump schemes and God knows what else. Why? Because they are extremely rich and have a lot of power.

This doesn't mean we should stop doing good things. But we should probably stop pretending that the law is some sort of invincible barrier to misbehavior. It lends very little credence to the robustness of the promise.

> This doesn't mean we should stop doing good things. But we should probably stop pretending that the law is some sort of invincible barrier to misbehavior. It lends very little credence to the robustness of the promise.

So we have common ground. I agree, laws by themselves have no power and they are certainly not an invincible barrier to anything! You need people and the will to uphold them. It requires eternal vigilance. And what I'm saying is that there are people and whole societies, in fact, wanting to and, in fact, upholding laws and the rule of law, e.g. Wirecard.

I may be naive, you may be cynic, that doesn't mean we can't pull on the same string. If you agree with me that the rule of law is desirable and that laws are uphold by people, I'd only ask you to not dismiss laws and the rule of law wholesale, just because there are bad actors and it is not perfect. I guess, that's not what you wanted to do anyway, but it came across as such.

---

After looking more into our case of Ecosia I agree, their pledge has little legal binding power so far. As a GmbH they can put out press releases all day and rescind them just as easily. It does not fulfill the specific requirements of an "Auslobung" (a promise to do something), so, yeah, at the moment it's all talk. They may do the walk, but nobody can sue them, if they don't.

A foundation would be different, but also hard to do and not really suited for economic activity, a gGmbH is geared for economic activity in the public interest, which is different again, so they lobby for a new legal form (GmbV) that binds capital as a foundation would but is as easy as a GmbH to set up and run. Like I wrote earlier, there is activity in the legislative to create such a legal form, but Germany being a very thorough representative democracy there are many things to be taken into account and it will take time. Honestly, I'm not really invested in this initiative, so I'll wait and see and wish them all the best.

> If the story turns out like it did with Cliqz/Hubert Burda (the other big German publisher) it will mean reinterpreting privacy as keeping the American companies out of the loop but sharing the data with the German publisher is OK, because they are clearly the good guys and can be trusted to treat your data responsibly.

Your sentence seems to imply that Cliqz was collecting "[the] data" like American companies (which companies? Which data?). Can you clarify what you are referring to?

Disclaimer: I worked at Cliqz

At this point, basically most of my searches on the web are either through brave search, or on Google followed by "... Reddit". At least in the not so distant past, I've found qwant to be slightly worse than google

Why not try Kagi? Serious question.

Honestly, I do not feel like needing something "more" than what I use right now. I'd say that reddit suffices for (almost) everything I need that I can't find with a simple search on brave search or Google

Kagi allows you to do things like inject CSS to filter out pre-translated Reddit results (although it is on their radar to make this a default setting).

Here's the CSS snippet hiding translations:

(technically you could inject it as a userscript but that's a bit more involved on mobile)

  /*
  Hide pre-translated webpages.
  "sri-group" is main result, "__srgi"  are sub results.
  You can append `:not(:has(a[href*="tl=en"]))` to allow English translations.
  */
  :is(div.__srgi, div.sri group._ext_r):has(a[href*="tl="]) {
    display: none !important;
  }

Although the main draw is being able to uprank, downrank and block sites in your results. They also do things like deprioritizing and labeling AI in image search, and concatenating listicles ("10 best Android note taking apps") under a single header.

Ok the points you made are cool

Userstyles are always nice, and if an that’s officially endorsed use that sounds sick!

> Although the main draw is being able to uprank, downrank and block sites in your results

I think Brave Search has this too now? Not as straightforward – you can only change site rank when you’re on the search page, and only for the domains currently on that page for some reason – even though the adjustments you’ve made will apply to all searches from now on. Oh, and it also only has uprank and block.

Reddit comments are mostly bots shilling ideology or products nowadays though. At least that's the impression I get.

It's still okay for specific niches or local communities imho

I'm a paying customer for Kagi, and I like it very much, but I don't use Google because it is part of FAMAG. As European, having a functioning European index is worth a lot more than Kagi. Though Kagi themselves also are building their own index, which is great.

Kagi uses Google and Bing so no reason they won't add this new index to the mix, if they can gain access. The more indexes the better!

So... why would you be more careful with that than Google or Bing? No matter what search engine you use, you will have a company with their agenda behind it.

Yes, be careful with Qwant, use Google or Bing.

thx for reminding me. The Cliqz story was absolutely insane. I think they burnt over 100 mio euros for basically nothing. They had no strategy whatsoever.

Qwant is led by one of the most questionable CEO in France. Driven by pure ego and bad management. Instead of building one good product (search), they tried to compete with almost everyone, and especially with every Google products (qwant mail, qwant maps, qwant music, etc.)

Léandri left Qwant 5 years ago though, and most of their plans for mail, maps, etc have been abandoned.

The new owner is Octave Klaba (from OVH).

The history of Qwant itself should be a big red-flag.

At this point, why keeping the brand?

They have no real IP of interest and they are only associated with bad things... for the few people that knows them.

The only thing that is stable in its history, is the public funds put in there...

Now I assume that it's the only reason for Qwant to exist: to get public funding and do everything but an actual European search engine/index.

Also, Octave is quite successful on his hardware/network ventures, it's the complete opposite for the software/service part. OVH would be much more popular if they knew how to make software, which is a decent Manager. Hubic is another disaster from Roubaix.

So this partnership is pretty meaningless for us I'm afraid.

I've been using Qwant, people have to be paid and there was never silence about the difficulties that qwant had. In fact, it would be odd if they would be hiring people and not really clear how they are being paid.

I'm happy for them on this partnership.

The Axel Springer-Verlag (Publisher) is nothing to be toying around with and accepting money from them is like making a deal with the devil. They own the news from the entire range of lower working class up to the upper middle class and have no hesitation in using those channels to brainwash those targets with the political views which Mathias Döpfner wants to be seen spread.

Second to none in Germany, but probably normal in the US.

>>Axel Springer-Verlag (Publisher) is nothing to be toying around with

The real question is:

Is Elliot Carver (from James Bond -> Tomorrow Never Dies) based on Mathias Döpfner or Rupert Murdoch?

In the spirit of international cooperation: ¿Por qué no los dos?

Would you say they are comparable to Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black then?

> They own the news from the entire range of lower working class up to the upper middle class

With a 10% market share? Come on.

Considering how German government is persecuting people for being pro-Palestine, I wouldn't want to share one bit of data with German entities.