Complaining about predatory business practices while dumping all your money to Taylor Swift is like giving the homeless guns and complaining about rising murder rates.
Internet voting in general in not only insecure but an human rights act violation against our species. Look none other than the fascist utopia that is YCombinator where some rando can remove your comments simply because they do not like your joke or opinion.
already decades ago when we were kids eating pudding with a fork was a fun past time, and i am sure the idea is as old as pudding or forks themselves. i mean, the fact that it spread so fast shows that there are many who already practiced it. it's actually surprising it took this long to become a meme.
heck, my cousin bet with me or let me compete eating pudding with chopsticks. (and that was long before i went to china)
practically speaking, the only downside of using a fork (or chopsticks) is scraping the bottom when you are finishing up.
We = DuckDuckGo. As the article notes, we are increasingly relying on our own search technology. For example, our Search Assist (our version of AI overviews), local results (maps, business listings, etc.), knowledge graph stuff (wikipedia, answers, etc.) don't come from Bing. That said, if Bing happens to removes something, we can add it back, which we do. We do not censor anything ouselves.
But DuckDuckGo does censor search results, if DMCA takedown requests are countered as censorship (which they should be because the system is abused).
Eg, DDG always fail the "watch (specific movie or tv show) online" search query test. Many other search engines like Bing and Google also fail. It's a quick censorship influence test as DMCA takedown requests have a clear track-record of being abused.
One search engine that succeeds is Russia's Yandex. I'm sure they censor plenty of things (eg, material sensitive to Russia), but that censorship set may not intersect with the Google, Bing and DDG sets.
> Eg, DDG always fail the "watch (specific movie or tv show) online" search query test. Many other search engines like Bing and Google also fail.
DDG results are mostly Bing results, so if a page doesn't show up on Bing, it probably won't on DDG either. That doesn't mean DDG themselves censored the results.
As a user that distinction is meaningless. I don't care what they use as a backend, and I shouldn't have to. If their source provider censors search results it means their own search results are censored too.
On the other hand, I click on a Wikipedia article and I'm immediately bombarded with "[blank] is an alt-right neo-nazi fascist authoritarian homophobic transphobic bigoted conspiracy theory (Source: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HATE THIS TOPIC I BEG YOU)"
At least Grokipedia tries to look like it was written with the intent to inform, not spoonfeed an opinion.
> At least Grokipedia tries to look like it was written with the intent to inform, not spoonfeed an opinion.
In addition, Grokipedia isn't encumbered by a Perennial Sources List[0] whose "generally reliable" section consists entirely of center and/or center-left media sources, and seems to be entirely purposed for gatekeeping.
The web site of the US television news network with by far the most viewership (Fox) was moved from "generally reliable" to "marginally reliable" for scientific and political claims, while MSNBC and CNN remain "generally reliable". This fact is laughable, considering MSNBC and CNN's mutual refusal to report on things like the Arctic Frost[1] (currently) and Hunter Biden laptop[2] (historically) conspiracies initiated under the Biden administration. Fox reported on both, but is not allowed as a source despite being the only major news network to not suppress the stories.
When an "encyclopedia" only allows unrestricted use of sources that fail to report information on notable news (such as conspiracies that are more far-reaching than Watergate), the encyclopedia will become less used by people because they no longer trust its new organizational and editorial biases.
Some folks, including myself, rarely reference Wikipedia anymore, because it often doesn't have the information being researched, and even if it does, we can't be sure we're getting very much (or any!) of the full story. This is broadly demonstrated by Wikipedia's constant decline in traffic from 2022 (~165M visits/day) through the present (~128M visits/day)[3].
As a counterpoint, I found wikipedia's "perennial_sources_list" to be a pretty reasonable efficiency measure. Additionally whats the problem with wikipedia's entry about "artic frost"? (your [1] did not link to anything regarding that entry)
>This is broadly demonstrated by Wikipedia's constant decline in traffic from 2022 (~165M visits/day) through the present (~128M visits/day)[3].
This demonstrates only the decrease in web traffic, and there are plenty of discussions about the reasons why and I suspect that conservatives didn't all of a sudden decide to hate wikipedia starting in 2022 as you seem to imply.
>I had typed "Taylor Swift" in a browser, and the response had literally zero links to Taylor Swift's actual website. If you stayed within what Atlas generated, you would have no way of knowing that Taylor Swift has a website at all.
Sounds like the browser did you a favor. Wonder if she'll be suing.
Funny article, though none of it would pass as a legitimate Wikipedia article because it does not cite CNN, CNBC, or any other Trustworthy™ news site included in the Wikipedia's totally neutral whiteli- I mean... allow-list.
