On reddit I would respond with r/woosh

deleted by creator

It is owned by the ad company System1 though.

Duckduckgo does not only source from Bing.They use sources from everyone but Google and they have their own web crawlers and an index of their own. Their results feel considerably more relevant to me than whatever Bing is doing. ’

Have a look here for more infos: https://duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/news-rankings

In some cases I still feel like Google has an edge but those cases become less frequent.

Duckduckgo should not have any such issues. If you need that prefix you should not even need any cookies. Going there has all those no AI settings on by default. Regarding Ecosia, could it be that you deleted some related cookies accidentialy? Or did they really push in a very sleazy way for AI?

Don’t do evil

Hasn’t that been Google’s guiding principle for quite some time already?

That is not how it works in the EU. The Cybertruck has never been street legal here, for a reason.

I disapprove the Schadenfreude comments, but this is not merely a “vehicle most people don’t like”. It is a dangerous vehicle unnecessarily threatening health and even live of other members of the community, especially of children. There is a reason why it is not street legal in the EU.

… owned by an ad company.

Ecosia seems to be pushing the aI stuff hard as well, but at least you have to press the obnoxious AI buttons to get it. Still, it refuses to make those buttons optional. Duckduckgo let’s you have clean experience without rubbing AI buttons or AI summaries in your face and so does qwant.

noai.duckduckgo.com

It offers also news search as well as image and video search. Filtering out AI images. Guaranteed AI summary free.

Sacrificing lives for aesthetics, pretty much sums it up and explains why this thing is not street legal in the civilised world.

Wouldn’t it be cheaper to pay vastly more versatile human guards a decent wage to guard those or more of those instead of those robots?

Cornell Unversity owns ArXiv.org, that doesn’t mean they have much to do with the content of that article, as they clearly state that ArXiv.org is not peer-reviewing articles hosted there.

Not quoting the primary source does not per chance have anything to do with the source being a not peer reviewed archive of the Cornell University, does it? I wonder, is that normal in the field of AI research?

They might think that they are upholding open source secure communication but what they are really achieving with it is fortifying the US big tech duopoly. There are other aims than theirs, of maximum security, in the EU we are facing the real and very relevant issue of digital sovereignty, which is separate from the ambition for getting hardened mobile systems. Sure, possibly legislation would be preferable to regulate and open up what Google’s Play Integrity API is doing, but as long as that legislation does not exist, creating alternative systems is crucial.

I can’t shake the feeling that this isn’t really about the UA but the private feud of Graphene OS developers with pretty much every single other alternative OS or degoogled android. Yes, they are all less secure than Graphene OS, primarily because Graphene OS relies on huge man power effort by Google to keep the firmware at the cutting edge with swift security updates. That is all good and fine, for their cause but it is not the only legitimate cause out there.

The war over civil rights is continuing, no questions but this has been an important vote against the surveillance state ambitions.