Startpage is now owned by an advertising company(reddit.com)
reddit.com
Startpage is now owned by an advertising company
https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/di5rn3/startpage_is_now_owned_by_an_advertising_company/
84 コメント
Former adtech CTO here.
I've heard this argument a lot but it's hard for me to agree.
Saying that ad arbitrage doesn't "add value" is kind of like arguing that someone with a media-buying/sales role doesn't "add value" because they're just sitting in the middle taking a paycheck/commission.
Partnering with ad arbitragers isn't much different than outsourcing internal media buying/sales roles to an agency to increase reach or fill-rate.
Your point about ads being annoying to end-users isn't unique to digital. Advertisements on all mediums have always annoyed end-users. Certain implementations like full-page takeovers & loading 100 ads on a page are the most annoying. Generally it's the publisher's fault for the bad UX.
I've heard this argument a lot but it's hard for me to agree.
Saying that ad arbitrage doesn't "add value" is kind of like arguing that someone with a media-buying/sales role doesn't "add value" because they're just sitting in the middle taking a paycheck/commission.
Partnering with ad arbitragers isn't much different than outsourcing internal media buying/sales roles to an agency to increase reach or fill-rate.
Your point about ads being annoying to end-users isn't unique to digital. Advertisements on all mediums have always annoyed end-users. Certain implementations like full-page takeovers & loading 100 ads on a page are the most annoying. Generally it's the publisher's fault for the bad UX.
> Advertisements on all mediums have always annoyed end-users.
This is untrue. Historically speaking, print advertisements in many markets (even when restricted to English-speaking ones) could and did serve multiple purposes, including the relation of interesting topics and stories--ones that certainly were brought-to-you-by or even featured products in them, but worked in concert with the material of the publlication to entertain and inform the reader.
It wasn't until the 1960s, approximately, that print advertisements turned into the screaming look-at-me garbage that they have continued to amplify in volume to this day.
Advertising does not have to be a pustule on society, but we have chosen to allow such.
This is untrue. Historically speaking, print advertisements in many markets (even when restricted to English-speaking ones) could and did serve multiple purposes, including the relation of interesting topics and stories--ones that certainly were brought-to-you-by or even featured products in them, but worked in concert with the material of the publlication to entertain and inform the reader.
It wasn't until the 1960s, approximately, that print advertisements turned into the screaming look-at-me garbage that they have continued to amplify in volume to this day.
Advertising does not have to be a pustule on society, but we have chosen to allow such.
Advertising has been problematic for quite some time.
A favourite telling of this is Hamilton Holt's 1909 lecture at UC Berkeley, published in book form.
It's a quick and informative read.
https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holt/page/10
A favourite telling of this is Hamilton Holt's 1909 lecture at UC Berkeley, published in book form.
It's a quick and informative read.
https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holt/page/10
The biggest issue that I have with companies like System1 is that a huge portion of their business model is tricking technically un-savvy people into clicking on ads they otherwise would not want to click on. How is that adding any value to society, other than a check in the pocket of the middle man?
The money comes from advertisers eventually, who are funded by sales, so the question becomes -- are those sale making the purchaser happy more than making nonpurchasers unhappy?
> Your point about ads being annoying to end-users
Is the entire point. Yes, advertising might add value to other parties. It's almost certainly net negative overall.
Is the entire point. Yes, advertising might add value to other parties. It's almost certainly net negative overall.
It's kind of funny how both counter-replies seem to ignore everything after the first word of "value to the average consumer's browsing experience".
There's that old saw about being incapable of understanding when one's salary depends on the misunderstanding, and it applies here. Our profession has helped make advertisements markedly worse (which is to say, better, by data-mining the hell out of individuals and aggregates alike and sharpening the psychological tools of attack to points) and markedly more aggressive, but fuck it, let's go shopping. I guess.
Did you read the last paragraph in my post? I explicitly addressed that. My point is:
1. Ad arbitrage has a role.
2. The blame of annoying/bad UX is unfairly being deferred to arbitragers. It's usually the implementation that annoys users, and that's generally the publisher's fault.
I don't know anything about System1's ethics and I'm not trying defend them by any means, but I don't agree with an argument that X company is bad because they've participated in arbitrage.
1. Ad arbitrage has a role.
2. The blame of annoying/bad UX is unfairly being deferred to arbitragers. It's usually the implementation that annoys users, and that's generally the publisher's fault.
I don't know anything about System1's ethics and I'm not trying defend them by any means, but I don't agree with an argument that X company is bad because they've participated in arbitrage.
I think it is entirely fair to blame arbitragers. They are the only ones who can control the advertisement implementation (as website owners no longer have direct relationships with ad providers), and they clearly fail to do so.
You are paid to be part of the problem, why would you understand it or even try? Its clear you dont want to.
It's hyperbolic to proclaim ad tech doesn't add value, given that Facebook and Google manage to serve billions of happy customers with services subsidised by ad tech.
That in no way implies I approve or like what they do - I run ad block wherever possible. Just refuse to believe in falsehoods trendy among rich, Urban tech savvy HN-ers, whose reality is far removed from the truth. Some estimates peg the value of "free" internet services, like Google search, Gmail, Facebook, etc at $30/month. That's a lot of value, if you ask me
That in no way implies I approve or like what they do - I run ad block wherever possible. Just refuse to believe in falsehoods trendy among rich, Urban tech savvy HN-ers, whose reality is far removed from the truth. Some estimates peg the value of "free" internet services, like Google search, Gmail, Facebook, etc at $30/month. That's a lot of value, if you ask me
He was saying ad arbitrage adds no value. As far as I can tell, this means the same ads are sold, and the free services receive the same amount of money, but companies have to pay more for ads and System1 takes a cut.
Why do you say it doesn't add value? I assume the targeting actually works and improves ad performance for advertisers?
I see you omitted "to society" on purpose on your question (after the word "value")
But if it improves ad performance for the people advertising then it does provide value for society. If nobody knows about your product then nobody's going to use it, which would make your product worthless to society regardless how good it is. Just think about launching a product, but you aren't allowed to advertise it in any way. You can't even expect word of mouth, because somebody would have to actually have known it exists.
You're assuming that marginally-advertised things are worth the attention budget of anyone downrange of it.
In the modern era and with the corpus of data available to them, advertisers are psychological attackers and should be treated as such.
In the modern era and with the corpus of data available to them, advertisers are psychological attackers and should be treated as such.
Ads are worth it to some people, because products do have customers and some of those customers had to learn about the product from the maker in some way. They're not worth it for everyone that sees them, but that's exactly what these types of ad middle men are trying to improve - to be able to show relevant ads to relevant people. I say trying, because they've pretty much only failed at it.
The company you work at creates a product. How would people find out about it without any advertising? Keep in mind that even just having a sign in front of a store is advertising.
The company you work at creates a product. How would people find out about it without any advertising? Keep in mind that even just having a sign in front of a store is advertising.
Hmm, I'm with the GP. I've lived through the transition from mostly restrained and controlled (and often very naive) UK advertising in the sixties and seventies, through to today when advertising ate everything. Available in-yer-face on every surface, tracking every move and psychologically trying to manipulate. We can trust nothing whatsoever. I didn't much mind how it was, I detest how it is now.
Probably a very minority view on HN, but I'd like to outlaw and treat as hostile all forms of advertising, except:
+ Yellow Pages style classified magazines and sites - Like old-school Yellow Pages, or the classifieds in the back of old magazines. When I want a new product, I can open the site or book and look for one. Easy.
+ Flat, silent and static magazine and newspaper style ads, locally served.
+ Branding on the packaging.
+ Shop signage akin to say the sixties or earlier - sign on frontage only. Illumination only whilst store open, and it's after lighting up time. No 20m KFC neon topped poles outside. No floodlights 24/7.
Nowt else. I'm fucking sick of the advertising arms race.
Probably a very minority view on HN, but I'd like to outlaw and treat as hostile all forms of advertising, except:
+ Yellow Pages style classified magazines and sites - Like old-school Yellow Pages, or the classifieds in the back of old magazines. When I want a new product, I can open the site or book and look for one. Easy.
+ Flat, silent and static magazine and newspaper style ads, locally served.
+ Branding on the packaging.
+ Shop signage akin to say the sixties or earlier - sign on frontage only. Illumination only whilst store open, and it's after lighting up time. No 20m KFC neon topped poles outside. No floodlights 24/7.
Nowt else. I'm fucking sick of the advertising arms race.
Hear, hear. Advertising can serve a function to society if and only if it is opt-in, honest, non-obtrusive and informative. That these characteristics happen to be the opposite of what the industry produces nowadays can not be a coincidence.
Those around here old enough to remember Computer Shopper [1] and other similar phone-book sized ad catalogues might agree that those were an example of a form of advertising which met at least three of the four mentioned criteria, some even might have met the fourth (being honesty). The model seemed to work back in those days given the 30-year lifespan of the magazine, the advent of the 'net followed by the decline of paper magazines eventually did it in.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Shopper_(US_magazine)
Those around here old enough to remember Computer Shopper [1] and other similar phone-book sized ad catalogues might agree that those were an example of a form of advertising which met at least three of the four mentioned criteria, some even might have met the fourth (being honesty). The model seemed to work back in those days given the 30-year lifespan of the magazine, the advent of the 'net followed by the decline of paper magazines eventually did it in.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Shopper_(US_magazine)
The UK has a regulatory requirement for advertising honesty. Magazines and TV would refuse ads they judged made too outrageous claims. Not perfect, but until those regs became mostly powerless in the face of web ads, it worked pretty much OK.
Computer Shopper - the UK version lasted about as long, Autotrader and Exchange and Mart are exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. Advertising as a positive, and nicely self-contained - you bought Autotrader when you needed a new car or van. Sure beats retargeting chasing you with the same ad for days because you briefly read a page on some silly product.
Computer Shopper - the UK version lasted about as long, Autotrader and Exchange and Mart are exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. Advertising as a positive, and nicely self-contained - you bought Autotrader when you needed a new car or van. Sure beats retargeting chasing you with the same ad for days because you briefly read a page on some silly product.
Yes. I've seen billboards as a hazard for years. And now we have digital billboards. Brightly lit, designed to catch the eye, rotating through an array of ads, right in the face of dozens of drivers travelling at 70+ mph.
Somehow--somehow--companies survived and even thrived off of static advertisements that generally targeted recipients by dint of the estimated (not exact) audience of a given publication and by signage controlled by community policy and with pretty strict requirements around night-time lighting and sound-and-nuisance in general. Somehow, those companies found buyers for their stuff. I know it's shocking, but they did.
It was better then.
This "oh but what about a sign?!" is some /r/iamverysmart strawman junk and I would hope that you would be better than that.
It was better then.
This "oh but what about a sign?!" is some /r/iamverysmart strawman junk and I would hope that you would be better than that.
We are not talking about general "advertising" concept -- we are talking specifically about System1, which is ad arbitrage and "unlocks consumer intent across channels including social, native, email, search"
There is nothing wrong with non-tracking advertizing -- looking solely at the content of the page ad is embedded it, or at the search term for the search engine is enough to let people know about new products, and has no negative social implications.
There is nothing wrong with non-tracking advertizing -- looking solely at the content of the page ad is embedded it, or at the search term for the search engine is enough to let people know about new products, and has no negative social implications.
[deleted]
By this line of reasoning, you would be in favor of me sending a drone to follow you around all day telling ads in your ear?
How can you jump to such conclusions? There's a middle ground between "no ads ever" and "intrusive ads 24/7". Better targeting actually is an improvement for the receiving party too, but our solutions for better targeting are just really bad.
Who said anything about "no ads ever"? The choice is between "fixed ads, like paper magazines and physical posters" and "tracking ads which follow you across the web, no matter where you go".
It’s our right to live knowing your product DOES NOT exist.
Many things exist that don't add value to "society", I'm going to stick to worrying about the value given to the people actually doing the purchasing thank you.
It'd add value to my bank account if I stole your car.
It isn’t exactly the ads that are the problem but the tracking. It is possible this is fine, but it seems likely to be... not fine
Edit: definitely not-fine: > Startpage is now (partly?) owned by System1, a company which...
> has developed a pre-targeting platform that identifies and unlocks consumer intent across channels including social, native, email, search, market research and lead generation rather than relying solely on what consumers enter into search boxes
Edit: definitely not-fine: > Startpage is now (partly?) owned by System1, a company which...
> has developed a pre-targeting platform that identifies and unlocks consumer intent across channels including social, native, email, search, market research and lead generation rather than relying solely on what consumers enter into search boxes
Hey, Startpage here. We appreciate your concern. We would be wary ourselves of outside investment in a company that we trust and depend on. Startpage leadership spent a lot of time considering who to bring on as an investor. The System1 funds will allow us to grow our global user base and bring private search to more people.
To ensure that our mission and privacy practices do not change, the investment includes covenants that ensure Startpage’s founders in the Netherlands will retain complete control over all privacy-related decisions.
If you’re interested, you can read more about the investment in this letter from our Founder and CEO Robert E.G. Beens: https://preview.redd.it/zher3ok6pct3†1.jpg
To ensure that our mission and privacy practices do not change, the investment includes covenants that ensure Startpage’s founders in the Netherlands will retain complete control over all privacy-related decisions.
If you’re interested, you can read more about the investment in this letter from our Founder and CEO Robert E.G. Beens: https://preview.redd.it/zher3ok6pct3†1.jpg
Hi Everyone, Startpage here. We are happy to answer any questions people have, please feel free to ask us.
To start, we’ve addressed some existing comments and questions with the information below. I’d also suggest reading this open letter about the acquisition from Startpage Founder and CEO Robert E.G. Beens (https://preview.redd.it/zher3ok6pct31.jpg).
- To ensure that our mission and privacy practices do not change, the investment includes covenants that ensure Startpage’s founders in the Netherlands will retain complete control over all privacy-related decisions.
- Robert still has final say over all product decisions, and Startpage will always be headquartered in the Netherlands.
- System1 invested in Startpage because they recognize increasing consumer demand for privacy-focused tools, not because they plan to alter Startpage’s core mission in any way.
- We will never compromise or weaken Startpage’s industry-leading privacy policy.
- We will not depart from Startpage’s core business model, which has been profitable since 2006. We make money with contextual ads (based solely on your search query) vs. other search engines that make money with behavioral ads (based on your personal profile and browsing history).
- The purpose of this investment is to allow Startpage to reach more users worldwide and advance our mission of making safe, private search available to everyone.
To start, we’ve addressed some existing comments and questions with the information below. I’d also suggest reading this open letter about the acquisition from Startpage Founder and CEO Robert E.G. Beens (https://preview.redd.it/zher3ok6pct31.jpg).
- To ensure that our mission and privacy practices do not change, the investment includes covenants that ensure Startpage’s founders in the Netherlands will retain complete control over all privacy-related decisions.
- Robert still has final say over all product decisions, and Startpage will always be headquartered in the Netherlands.
- System1 invested in Startpage because they recognize increasing consumer demand for privacy-focused tools, not because they plan to alter Startpage’s core mission in any way.
- We will never compromise or weaken Startpage’s industry-leading privacy policy.
- We will not depart from Startpage’s core business model, which has been profitable since 2006. We make money with contextual ads (based solely on your search query) vs. other search engines that make money with behavioral ads (based on your personal profile and browsing history).
- The purpose of this investment is to allow Startpage to reach more users worldwide and advance our mission of making safe, private search available to everyone.
I’m a senior engineer at Startpage, and I can personally confirm all of the above. Our system is implemented in such a way that we never store a user's search query, IP address, or any other personally identifying information, and that will never change. If anyone is interested, I can answer specific questions about technical details.
Maybe Qwant [1] is a good alternative? I'm interested what others think about it. It's European and they seem to respect privacy. I like their detailed FAQ [2]. According to Wikipedia they use their own indexing service but collaborate with the Bing ad network [3].
[1] https://www.qwant.com/ [2] https://help.qwant.com/help/overview/how-does-qwant-make-mon... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwant
[1] https://www.qwant.com/ [2] https://help.qwant.com/help/overview/how-does-qwant-make-mon... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwant
Qwant is powered by bing under the hood. Wikipedia is wrong about that.
https://news.microsoft.com/europe/features/qwant-and-microso... -- dated May 22, 2019
https://news.microsoft.com/europe/features/qwant-and-microso... -- dated May 22, 2019
So is it recommended to stop using Startpage? Use DuckDuckGo? Is there a way to roll your own to post on your own DigitalOcean/Linode/Docker hosting solution?
If you can find (or host) a good Searx instance, that's an option.
https://github.com/jivesearch/jivesearch. I run my own instance with the crawler so I don't rely on Yandex (their default). I switched when DDG purged a lot of their !bangs. Even though I don't use the purged !bangs much I felt they were censoring.
The problem with hosting your own instance of searx is that you will most likely be one of the only users and since the underlying search engine (Google, etc) knows where the traffic came from (your instance) they can pin it on you so you might as well just use Google directly. Also, I keep getting captcha errors when I try to use searx.
How does Startpage make money? How does it plan to make money in the future?
Startpage has been a profitable business since 2006. We make money with contextual ads (based solely on your search query) vs. other search engines that make money with behavioral ads (based on your personal profile and browsing history). These contextual ads appear on the top of each search results page. As a condition of the investment terms, this will always be our business model on search. The investment we received will be used to reach more users worldwide.
Nice discussion going on at PTIO about delisting: https://forum.privacytools.io/t/candidate-for-delisting-disc...
Startpage uses Google's results yet does Google offer an API like Bing does?
Yes, Google does offer such a (paid) API, that is what Startpage uses.
Anyone know how many other semi-known search engines are using it? Also, your searches are completely anonymous using any third party Goggle search engine?
Every search engine box you see on the Internet is powered by google or bing, basically, with Yandex having a tiny piece. And part of System1's business is syndicating google/bing APIs.
Google keeps their search private, startpage uses a private API.
I don't think they would have lasted long using a private API.
They pay for it. In fact the most common deal is to show both google search ads and google results, then the results are free and you get a cut of the ad revenue.
That's interesting, is that documented somewhere?
It can be private but paid and supported simultaneously
What is Startpage?
A wrapper around Google search. Supposed to be: great results, no tracking, respect for privacy.
Never heard of it. What's the advantage over DuckDuckGo?
Key differentiators are:
- Startpage was founded in 2006, in the Netherlands by Robert E.G. Beens and David Bodnick the founder of metasearch engine Ixquick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startpage.com)
VS. DuckDuckGo (DDG) was founded in 2008, in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania by Gabriel Weinberg who previously founded Names Database (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_Database).
- HQ'd in the Netherlands ensuring worldwide users are protected by stringent EU and Dutch privacy legislation
VS. DDG based in the United States
- Startpage provides Google results
VS. DDG provides primarily Yahoo and BING results
- Startpage offers Anonymous View, a proprietary feature that lets users browse their search results privately via a protective proxy
VS. DDG does not have this feature, but has done well to design an intuitive and attractive experience.
- Startpage was founded in 2006, in the Netherlands by Robert E.G. Beens and David Bodnick the founder of metasearch engine Ixquick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startpage.com)
VS. DuckDuckGo (DDG) was founded in 2008, in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania by Gabriel Weinberg who previously founded Names Database (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_Database).
- HQ'd in the Netherlands ensuring worldwide users are protected by stringent EU and Dutch privacy legislation
VS. DDG based in the United States
- Startpage provides Google results
VS. DDG provides primarily Yahoo and BING results
- Startpage offers Anonymous View, a proprietary feature that lets users browse their search results privately via a protective proxy
VS. DDG does not have this feature, but has done well to design an intuitive and attractive experience.
Not a pro or con: DDG uses Bing results, startpage uses Google results
EDIT: The comment I replied to here has since been changed. xref originally wrote: "DDG uses Bing results, startpage uses Google results"
---
You haven't described an advantage with this reply. Or, at least, reasoning why you believe it's an advantage.
---
You haven't described an advantage with this reply. Or, at least, reasoning why you believe it's an advantage.
Most people believe (at least as far as I know them), that google results are better than bing.
Plus star page has super useful anonimized view. It's essentially anon proxy built into search page. It's useful if you have to go look trough doggy websites.
Plus star page has super useful anonimized view. It's essentially anon proxy built into search page. It's useful if you have to go look trough doggy websites.
>Most people believe (at least as far as I know them), that google results are better than bing.
This doesn't help. A lot of people believe things which don't always hold up to scrutiny.
This doesn't help. A lot of people believe things which don't always hold up to scrutiny.
For many people, Google results are an advantage. Much as for many people targeted results are an advantage. Your definition of advantage seems unreasonably strict.
This is a bizarre comment. I've not made any assertions or definitions. My initial comment was in reply to an unsupported assertion. Perhaps your comment was in response to someone else.
Not at all, and it was aimed at you.
When you asked for support for the assertion, it was given, but you continued to disagree.
However, for people who prefer Google, using Google results is an advantage. You seem to be working under some stronger definition of advantage (for example: "an advantage is only an advantage of everyone agrees it is am advantage"), and such advantages are rare enough to be an unreasonable requirement.
When you asked for support for the assertion, it was given, but you continued to disagree.
However, for people who prefer Google, using Google results is an advantage. You seem to be working under some stronger definition of advantage (for example: "an advantage is only an advantage of everyone agrees it is am advantage"), and such advantages are rare enough to be an unreasonable requirement.
>Not at all, and it was aimed at you.
>When you asked for support for the assertion, it was given, but you continued to disagree.
The "support" that the other poster submitted was: "Most people believe (at least as far as I know them) ..."
I don't suspect many folks would accept that as anything more than anecdotal.
>However, for people who prefer Google, using Google results is an advantage. You seem to be working under some stronger definition of advantage (for example: "an advantage is only an advantage of everyone agrees it is am advantage"), and such advantages are rare enough to be an unreasonable requirement.
Look, I get it, you like Google. You work for Google. That's all well and good. You're argument(s) toward me come off as a bit defensive, however. There was a baseless assertion given in response to someone asking for information and I called that into question.
My arguments here aren't for or against Google, but in support of substantive dissemination of information which the original comment I replied to was not.
>When you asked for support for the assertion, it was given, but you continued to disagree.
The "support" that the other poster submitted was: "Most people believe (at least as far as I know them) ..."
I don't suspect many folks would accept that as anything more than anecdotal.
>However, for people who prefer Google, using Google results is an advantage. You seem to be working under some stronger definition of advantage (for example: "an advantage is only an advantage of everyone agrees it is am advantage"), and such advantages are rare enough to be an unreasonable requirement.
Look, I get it, you like Google. You work for Google. That's all well and good. You're argument(s) toward me come off as a bit defensive, however. There was a baseless assertion given in response to someone asking for information and I called that into question.
My arguments here aren't for or against Google, but in support of substantive dissemination of information which the original comment I replied to was not.
I'm making an entirely semantic argument that has nothing to do with Google in particular. I'm calling out bad reasoning on your part.
Startpage has an advantage over ddg because some people prefer Google search results.
Equally, ddg has an advantage over startpage because some people prefer being results or prefer to not use Google.
It doesn't matter if even a single person prefers Google to bing. For that single person, startpage has an advantage. The reverse of this is again, also true. Anecdotal evidence is, in this case, more than enough to justify the assertion.[0] That is, unless you're working under some unusually strong definition of advantage. Which I'll note you still haven't provided. Instead of, perhaps, saying "yes I don't consider a relative advantage that applies only to a potentially small group of people to be an advantage", you took the opportunity to make irrelevant attacks on my character.
[0]: if you want non anecdotal evidence though: both have users. This implies each has a relative advantage over the other to some subset of the population, otherwise one would take all the users from that other.
Startpage has an advantage over ddg because some people prefer Google search results.
Equally, ddg has an advantage over startpage because some people prefer being results or prefer to not use Google.
It doesn't matter if even a single person prefers Google to bing. For that single person, startpage has an advantage. The reverse of this is again, also true. Anecdotal evidence is, in this case, more than enough to justify the assertion.[0] That is, unless you're working under some unusually strong definition of advantage. Which I'll note you still haven't provided. Instead of, perhaps, saying "yes I don't consider a relative advantage that applies only to a potentially small group of people to be an advantage", you took the opportunity to make irrelevant attacks on my character.
[0]: if you want non anecdotal evidence though: both have users. This implies each has a relative advantage over the other to some subset of the population, otherwise one would take all the users from that other.
I didn't say it makes sense.
Of the group of people I know, that are even aware that there are other search engines than google (most people just think google homepage is "the web/internet"), most of them think that google is better than bing.
Is it true ? Depends on whom and for for what. For technical questions i mostly get similar results. But for local questions (i am in small country in eu), google is a lot better than bing.
Of the group of people I know, that are even aware that there are other search engines than google (most people just think google homepage is "the web/internet"), most of them think that google is better than bing.
Is it true ? Depends on whom and for for what. For technical questions i mostly get similar results. But for local questions (i am in small country in eu), google is a lot better than bing.
Some people think Google gives them better results for their searches than DDG, Startpage & Searx allow them to use Google search but with the privacy and anti-advertisement advantages of DDG.
Startpage is the first-ever private search engine, founded in the Netherlands. We offer Google search results without allowing Google to log your personal search history or build a profile about you. Our privacy policy is to never log, store or share your personal data.
Startpage goes beyond search with Anonymous View, our private browsing proxy that lets users view websites within their search results privately. Over the last 13 years, we’ve grown to become the world’s most private search engine protecting users’ data rights with Dutch and EU protective legislation.
Try a private search and our Anonymous View browsing feature at www.Startpage.com
Startpage goes beyond search with Anonymous View, our private browsing proxy that lets users view websites within their search results privately. Over the last 13 years, we’ve grown to become the world’s most private search engine protecting users’ data rights with Dutch and EU protective legislation.
Try a private search and our Anonymous View browsing feature at www.Startpage.com
I wonder what this means for StartMail’s (startpage’s email) clients?
From the Reddit thread [1], StartMail is a separate company and wasn't part of the acquisition.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/di5rn3/startpage_i...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/di5rn3/startpage_i...
Yes, that is correct.
Every search engine that uses ads and affiliate links as primary method to monetize searches is in essence owned by advertising company which includes Google and DuckDuckGo.
Private.sh [1] cryptographically protects your privacy.
[1] https://private.sh
[1] https://private.sh
I don't think private.sh can provide the kind of protection that they seem to imply is their goal; sure, they can encrypt your traffic in the browser, but unless the search engine(s) they use as a backend are the ones are decrypting it then private.sh controls the exit nodes and can MitM anything they want.
Yes, the search engine they use (Gigablast) is the one decrypting. From the private.sh main page:
> Every single search request from our website and extension is encrypted locally on the client and proxied through our service, stripping away your public IP address ensuring that only the search provider is able to decrypt and see your query without any knowledge of who you are.
> The results are returned to you through our proxy and are rendered locally on your machine only using javascript running on your machine.
I haven't used it, so I don't know what their results are like, but you seem to be mistaken about the privacy.
> Every single search request from our website and extension is encrypted locally on the client and proxied through our service, stripping away your public IP address ensuring that only the search provider is able to decrypt and see your query without any knowledge of who you are.
> The results are returned to you through our proxy and are rendered locally on your machine only using javascript running on your machine.
I haven't used it, so I don't know what their results are like, but you seem to be mistaken about the privacy.
It's just marketing bullshit.
The query is encrypted with the publickey of gigablast, clientside. Private.sh cannot see the query/search. And vice versa, the results are encrypted with the client's public key and thus can only be decrypted by the client!
[deleted]
What sounds like a complete scam at first looks like a viable Startpage successor on second glance.
Posted on Reddit, which is also an advertising company.
As a side note - the whole digital advertising industry reminds me a little of the financial engineering on Wall Street of the last decade. Doesn't add any new value to society - and in many ways actually harms it - but makes so much money that companies build their whole strategy around it.