[HN Gopher] "YouTube-dl" and "Pirate Bay" back on DDG
___________________________________________________________________
"YouTube-dl" and "Pirate Bay" back on DDG
Author : ikt
Score : 326 points
Date : 2022-04-17 14:41 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fosstodon.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (fosstodon.org)
| fortran77 wrote:
| I wonder if it was unintentional. They rely on Bing's database
| for their search engine; if these sites disappeared from their
| data source, might it have disappeared from DDG without any
| direct intention?
| mlindner wrote:
| Is there a search alternative that isn't just using Google or
| Bing underneath? DDG is just Bing and all the recent filtering
| and what not that Bing has been doing also applies to DDG. Many
| things that used to show up on DDG no longer do.
| freediver wrote:
| There are plenty - Kagi, Brave, Mojeek, Yandex, Rightdao,
| Gigablast...
| mlindner wrote:
| Doesn't Brave also use Bing underneath?
| xigoi wrote:
| If their about page isn't lying, about 90% of their results
| are original.
| sylware wrote:
| I guess we need an up-to-date wikipedia page about all those
| alternatives.
| vvf1 wrote:
| DanHulton wrote:
| Been using Kagi for the last week and the search results have
| been SURPRISINGLY good. Like, in the "I don't have to scroll
| to find it" category of good, and no having to deal with spam
| sites that just copy the actual answer but somehow rank
| higher than the original, like currently plagues Google.
| AndrewVos wrote:
| This is probably because Kagi uses Google and Bing indexes.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| That revenue model is crazy, no way will they last.
| AndrewVos wrote:
| Kagi uses both Google and Bing index.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| > Brave Search is built on top of a completely independent
| index, and doesn't track users, their searches, or their
| clicks.
|
| https://brave.com/brave-search-beta/
| Pigalowda wrote:
| I had never used youtube-dl until the story happened. I
| downloaded for windows and its speeds were throttled to around
| 50kB/s. Posters on Stack recommended the ytdlp fork which i tried
| and it was 5-10 MB/s. Just fyi
| 77pt77 wrote:
| I started getting systematic
|
| > Connection reset by peer
|
| in a script that I have that downloads podcasts and immediately
| transcodes to low bitrate opus using ffmpeg.
|
| It's a real bummer...
| burnte wrote:
| I always find jwz's youtubedown works flawlessly for me.
| https://www.jwz.org/hacks/youtubedown
| Aissen wrote:
| How often do you update it ? Because it seems to have seen
| quite a few update from the beginning of 2022.
| js2 wrote:
| Do not direct link to jwz.org from HN. Here's a click-safe
| link:
|
| https://dereferer.me/?https%3A//www.jwz.org/hacks/youtubedow.
| ..
| Aissen wrote:
| Does not work either because apparently bit.ly's 301
| preserves the Referer.
| js2 wrote:
| Weird, I had tested it. I've updated to a de-referrer
| site instead.
| Aissen wrote:
| Might be a browser difference (firefox here). Thanks for
| the update, it works better.
| bscphil wrote:
| It genuinely shocks me that there are still people who
| don't disable sending the referer header cross-origin in
| the browser: I have not encountered a _single_ website that
| breaks when setting `network.http.referer.XOriginPolicy` to
| 1 in Firefox, and only 2 or 3 sites that break when setting
| it all the way to 2.
|
| It not only completely prevents stuff like this, it
| profoundly increases your privacy on the web by preventing
| sites from tracking which domain you came from. There is no
| good reason any site needs to know that. I am surprised
| that Mozilla hasn't simply made this the default setting
| for all users.
| [deleted]
| 77pt77 wrote:
| > Do not direct link to jwz.org from HN
|
| Why?
| psyc wrote:
| Because the admin detects HN referer explicitly and
| presents a joke page.
| mnd999 wrote:
| Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I find this kind of
| subversion amusing. Like all good jokes, it's pretty
| close to the mark.
| psyc wrote:
| I agree, so it's a safe bet you _are_ in the minority.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| I've since noticed...
|
| Just copy the link to not send any referrer information.
| UberFly wrote:
| FireDM (https://pypi.org/project/FireDM) is an awesome front
| end for ytdlp for those interested.
| belter wrote:
| GitHub Links from the project page all get a 404.
|
| https://github.com/firedm/ shows no public repos and of
| course https://github.com/firedm/FireDM gets a 404
| bspammer wrote:
| Yeah youtube-dl is missing workarounds for throttling
| implemented by google. youtube-dl is pretty much unmaintained
| compared to yt-dlp:
|
| https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/graphs/commit-activit...
|
| https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/graphs/commit-activity
| vmoore wrote:
| And yt-dlp uses an 'Android API' to stop throttling
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I expect the ability to use APIs like this will be hindered
| once remote attestation becomes the norm.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| One has to execute functions from base.js^1 to modify the
| "n" URL parameter and the "sig" parameter to get the
| fastest download speeds. (One can still download videos
| with the original n parameter, or without the n parameter,
| but download speeds will be slower.)
|
| A website that forces users to run Javascript in order to
| get faster download speeds. This is not a new idea.
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/s/player/{player_version}/player
| _ias...
| [deleted]
| elcomet wrote:
| This is why I come on HN, I always learn something useful.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| I noticed this recently, too. I frequently scrape concerts from
| YouTube by adding them to a private playlist and then running a
| script on my HTPC to pull down everything from that playlist.
| As recently as six months ago, pulling down a 2-3GB playlist
| file (maybe a 30-40 minute concert at 720P) took ten to fifteen
| minutes. The last time I tried it, it estimated several hours.
| soheil wrote:
| If you're downloading a playlist you could run it in parallel
| to achieve your max network bandwidth speed:
| function ytp() { youtube-dl --get-id "$1" | xargs -I '{}' -P
| 200 youtube-dl -i --embed-thumbnail --add-metadata -f
| 'bestaudio[ext=m4a]' -o '%(title)s.%(ext)s'
| 'https://youtube.com/watch?v={}'; }
| rane wrote:
| FWIW, just recently wrote a go program that watches a Youtube
| playlist and downloads new videos to a configurable path:
| https://github.com/raine/ytdlwatch
|
| I use it to download videos into a Plex library.
| mgdlbp wrote:
| The workaround for vanilla youtube-dl is to use it with aria2,
| with options like: --external-downloader aria2c
| --external-downloader-args "--continue --max-concurrent-
| downloads=3 --max-connection-per-server=3 --split 3 --min-
| split-size 1M"
|
| (possibly in your config file)
|
| Also, neither --format best nor --format bestvideo chooses the
| best encoding in all cases; they use bitrate as a heuristic for
| quality, and a less efficient codec can have higher bitrate but
| worse quality, resolution, or framerate. The workaround for
| this is specifying --format with an enumeration of every
| combination of codec, resolution, and framerate in preferred
| order, which goes like this: --format "(bestvid
| eo[vcodec^=av01][height>=4320][fps>30]/bestvideo[vcodec^=vp9.2]
| [height>=4320] ...
|
| Here's a full example (hmm... they're using it with yt-dlp,
| which I thought had fixed this?):
|
| https://github.com/TheFrenchGhosty/TheFrenchGhostys-Ultimate...
|
| I think there's a bit of variation in the exact order among the
| config files found online. If you're goals are archival,
| consider also retrieving metadata, thumbnail, and subtitles in
| all languages; I also have in my config the options:
| --verbose --download-archive ./ytdl-archive.txt
| --cookies ./ytdl-cookies.txt --merge-output-format mkv
| --add-metadata --all-subs --embed-subs
| --write-info-json --write-thumbnail
| --no-overwrites --continue
| --force-ipv4
|
| (the only remaining workaround for age-restricted videos is to
| give it cookies extracted from a browser with a real Google
| account logged in)
| altcognito wrote:
| Am I the only one totally chill with the throttling? Look, I'm
| not sure if it's the best idea for their own resource
| utilitization (there are probably peak times when more
| throttline is better, and quiet internet times when throttling
| doesn't make sense) As long as they are being gracious hosts
| and allowing downloads, I'm good with being throttled I guess?
| emteycz wrote:
| 50 kB/s means you'll be downloading a 10min video like 10
| hours.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _50 kB /s means you'll be downloading a 10min video like
| 10 hours_
|
| Very misleading phrasing: you would download in 10 hours _a
| ~10 hours long video_ , which (of course) could have been
| downloaded in a fraction of the time.
|
| The throttling has the user download at a speed similar to
| that required to viewing the video.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| nomilk wrote:
| Why does DDG de-list things in the first place; isn't it in the
| interest of search engines to be as useful as possible to users,
| and thus maximise the results provided?
|
| Also curious to know the extent to which Google de-lists things?
|
| Long term, perhaps a decentralised search engine could get around
| de-listing and provide a more reliable and rigorous search
| experience.
| RedBeetDeadpool wrote:
| DDG CEO is clearly biased. Its no longer a neutral platform:
|
| https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1501716484761997318?s=20&t=9...
|
| Before someone chimes in, yes I understand the humanitarian
| perspective. That's not my point. My point is that DDG is not
| neutral, and is politically biased.
| RedBeetDeadpool wrote:
| BTW, if you wanted a biased platform, just use Google, its
| significantly better in every way.
|
| Ultimately what I'm getting at is: There's no market for DDG.
| Use Google for biased searches, and use other search engines
| that are not biased(which excludes DDG) for unbiased
| searches.
|
| What are the use cases for DDG?
| pmoriarty wrote:
| DDG respects privacy, or at least claims to. Google has
| nothing but contempt for it, and thrives on spying on you.
| notriddle wrote:
| > Why does DDG de-list things in the first place
|
| I don't think anyone wants to use a search engine that never
| delists anything. Ransomeware, Markov chain junk, plagiarism. A
| search engine that never delists anything is useless.
|
| The problem is when delisting is used _against_ the end-user's
| interests.
| notatoad wrote:
| DDG uses the Bing index. If Bing de-lists something, then it
| disappears from DDG.
|
| Microsoft (and any other big company) has many competing
| interests other than just being helpful to users.
| nomilk wrote:
| > [big companies have] many competing interests
|
| Are the main ones i) reducing competition and ii) managing
| their reputation?
|
| If so, the case for a decentralised search engine got
| stronger.
| [deleted]
| jbay808 wrote:
| I wonder how a decentralized search engine would fight its
| inevitable SEO war, should it become successful.
|
| I'd expect that all sites wanting to draw traffic would attempt
| to grab the reins of the search engine to point toward
| themselves, and the result would be search results ordered by
| rein-grabbing power.
|
| Not that centralized search engines are immune to this; they're
| almost as vulnerable (seeing as sponsored search results exist)
| but the maintainer at least has to balance that with the
| utility of the search engine overall, to prevent the search
| engine from falling out of favour.
|
| With a decentralized engine, parties that have deeply invested
| in manipulating the results will still want the engine to be
| popular too, but I'm not sure how you resolve the prisoners
| dilemma there as a whole.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| > I wonder how a decentralized search engine would fight its
| inevitable SEO war, should it become successful.
|
| > I'd expect that all sites wanting to draw traffic would
| attempt to grab the reins of the search engine to point
| toward themselves, and the result would be search results
| ordered by rein-grabbing power.
|
| I would venture to say that a combination of allow-lists and
| block-lists from trusted parties, ranked using some kind of
| distributed web-of-trust system would work reasonably well.
| KMag wrote:
| Ages ago, I was a professional P2P developer, and I vaguely
| remember some of the research papers on P2P censorship-
| resistant reputation systems. Generally, you have public
| signing keys that sign ratings (say, -1.0 to 1.0) for both
| content and other raters. These signed ratings collections
| are then pushed into a distributed hash table.
|
| The basic idea is when you rate something, your client also
| looks up in the DHT other people who have rated the same
| content with similar ratings. Your client then pulls the
| latest ratings collections from those people, and computes
| the cosign distance between your ratings and their ratings
| (over the intersection of content that both of you have
| rated). Periodically, your client signs and publishes an
| updated ratings document, where the rating for other raters
| is the cosign distance. The cosign distance, the size of
| the ratings intersection set, and maybe some other factors
| go into deciding which raters get published out in your
| ratings update.
|
| When you query for the rating for a given piece of content,
| your client grabs the list of ratings for that content from
| the DHT. It then pulls the latest ratings published by
| those raters, computes cosign distance, and then does
| something similar to Djikstra's shortest-path algorithm to
| recursively search the DHT using these cosign distances as
| weights. In general, the DHT wouldn't have many signatures
| stored under the content's hash, but by recursively
| following the graph of other raters, your client hopefully
| finds other raters that rate things similarly to you and
| have rated this content. The path weight to a given rater
| is the product of cosign distances, and so by using a
| priority queue for querying, you get something close to a
| breadth-first search of the ratings graph. Once your client
| has accumulated enough weight of ratings for the given
| content, it stops and shows you the weighted average of the
| ratings (and maybe the weighted std. dev. is displayed as a
| confidence score to power users who have enabled it).
|
| Presumably, the UI for the ratings system maps 0 to 5 stars
| to 0.0 to 1.0 (probably not linearly, more likely the
| client locally keeps a histogram of the user's ratings and
| then maps the star rating back to a percentile rating), and
| the "spam" button rates the content as -1.0.
|
| The tricks come down to the metrics used for how the DHT
| decides priorities for cache eviction of the per-content
| ratings and also the per-rater ratings. You don't want
| spammers or other censors to be able to easily force cache
| eviction. Getting cache eviction metrics right is the key
| to having the system scale well while also preventing
| spammers/censors from evicting the most useful sets of
| ratings.
| tdiff wrote:
| Banning Russian news outlets from search results was generally
| supported here on HN.
| gscott wrote:
| There is no war just a special operation.
| tonguez wrote:
| we must condemn russias unprovoked genocide of neo nazis
| suction wrote:
| Wait, did Russians start committing suicide?
| ghostly_s wrote:
| That's certainly not how I remember that thread going.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Copyright industry pressure.
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| The youtube-dl homepage has returned to the listings as has
| thepiratebay. However they still aren't indexing thepiratebay or
| youtube-dl.org's contents so you can't search within the sites
| you only get the homepage. The complaint the other day was about
| the indexes too, so its only partially fixed.
| yegg wrote:
| That's not actually true. Our site search is having issues, so
| better to just add the site name to the search, but note that
| youtube-dl.org is just one page and for other sites (that are
| essentially vertical search engines) you're better off going
| directly to them since their index is going to be more up to
| date.
| ok123456 wrote:
| I'm probably going to stop using DDG now. I don't want my results
| filtered in anyway because of pearl clutching over 'piracy' or
| whatever.
| vvf1 wrote:
| ok123456 wrote:
| Getting a blank "Please reload the page, something went
| wrong" page instead of rendering anything.
|
| Seems to have an uncaught exception trying to use the beacon
| API (which I have disabled).
|
| You.com looks like junk.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| Discussed a few months ago at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29165601
| mysterydip wrote:
| What are you going to use instead?
| ok123456 wrote:
| yandex
| CharlesW wrote:
| Yandex is the worst alternative you could pick.
| https://www.protocol.com/policy/yandex-gershenzon-qa
| tonguez wrote:
| "...tech giant Yandex has a handshake deal with
| government authorities to limit what news outlets the
| site will pull onto its homepage"
|
| wow that sounds so incredibly different from the
| alternatives
| ok123456 wrote:
| Just don't get all your news from yandax??
| s__s wrote:
| Brave has a new search engine.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Switched to Brave Search - not looking back. I don't even care if
| the index sucks, it's been "good enough" and it has bangs.
| vvf1 wrote:
| yoyopa wrote:
| if all you nerds stop talking about it maybe it will stay up
| wyager wrote:
| DDG has been de-listing a ton of stuff recently. They recently
| de-listed rdrama, a reddit-trolling website that came up on HN
| last year. What, exactly, do they think people use them for? If I
| wanted "result curation" or whatever euphemism for censorship, I
| would just use Google.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| Man, that's interesting, they removed rdrama.net but left
| KiwiFarms up, and now the main result for "rdrama" is the
| KiwiFarms thread about it
| Marsey wrote:
| Luckily searching "Marsey the Cat" on Bing still yields the
| correct knowyourmeme and Twitter pages.
| scarburato wrote:
| Bing delisted rdrama too. I think it is related somehow (?)
| BurdensomeCount wrote:
| Yep, I think the delisting comes from Bing, not DDG since DDG
| just pulls all their results from Bing since they stopped
| also using Yandex.
| mgdlbp wrote:
| I noticed some time ago that Google refuses to offer up
| Encyclopedia Dramatica unless you use the site: operator.
|
| There was some drama in 2010 over ED being censored in
| Australia, but it looks like Google has since quietly
| delisted it completely.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They've removed Yandex and are now at the mercy of Bing's
| censorship.
| BurdensomeCount wrote:
| Amazing that nowadays if you want the best "uncensored"
| results you have to go to the Russian Yandex (at least on all
| topics unrelated to Russia). How did our society get to such
| a point...
| markdown wrote:
| If that isn't a rhetorical question... capitalism.
| mpalczewski wrote:
| > capitalism
|
| If capitalism caused censorship you would expect the
| least capitalist places to have the least censorship but
| the opposite is true.
| kenoph wrote:
| If capitalism causes censorship, that doesn't mean it's
| necessarily the worst at causing censorship.
|
| Additionally, we don't live in a stationary society, so,
| whatever capitalism did or did not cause in the past
| might not apply as-is today.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Capitalism (as practiced by democracies) allows you to
| start an alternative site that doesn't censor results as
| well. Totalitarianism (Communism) would not have. Choose
| your poison from amongst the various governments that
| have succeeded (for a while) in the past as I don't think
| Utopia is a possibility with humans as messed up as we
| are.
| kenoph wrote:
| Related:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
| ldiracdelta wrote:
| They've "memory-holed", 1984-style, other conservative sites as
| well. Just another narrative-enforcing search-engine.
| uuyi wrote:
| I prefer to say "shite removal" after the last half a decade.
|
| At least TPB adds value to peoples lives.
| ldiracdelta wrote:
| ldiracdelta wrote:
| Yes, the Overton Window must be enforced. We have always
| been at war with East Asia.
| somenameforme wrote:
| It depends on what you want out of a search engine. Do you
| want a search that tries to give you what it thinks you
| want? Or do you want a search that functions more like a
| library index where you're going to get what you searched
| for, even if that might ironically not really be exactly
| what you wanted - so the onus of creating a more correct
| search term is on you.
|
| This isn't a rhetorical question of course. There are major
| arguments for both. But I think a pretty good chunk of DDG
| users were more often after the library index than what
| ideally would be a librarian recommendation, but in reality
| is more like a stereotypical used car salesman style
| recommendation.
| fallingknife wrote:
| I would be fine with either. But what I really don't want
| is a search engine that gives me what it thinks I should
| want.
| ta8903 wrote:
| Removal of TPB was a positive too. Can't imagine how much
| loss of revenue these pirate sites have caused over the
| years.
| colordrops wrote:
| The whole point is to have a place where you can see shite
| if you want. I don't need an online nanny.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| I might agree with shite. Or I might wish to read it for
| my own amusement. Or perhaps I want to argue against the
| shite, in which case, I need to know what shite is out
| there. In any case, it doesn't matter. I only need the
| search engine to be an intermediary, not a curator.
|
| Besides, if someone accidentally searches for shite, he
| can revise his search terms. Just like how you might
| reword something if a listener was confused.
|
| This "curation" just doesn't need to exist. But that's a
| moral argument and those applying censorship aren't
| moral, so won't be partial to it.
| asdff wrote:
| Isn't DDG just reskinned bing anyhow?
| pkdpic wrote:
| Sorry to be that guy but what was going on? This is alarming as
| someone who uses DDG and youtube-dl kinda too much probably.
|
| Also if anyone else is slightly hung over and searches DDG in DDG
| and gets super confused for three seconds because DDG is a rapper
| apparently just know you aren't alone. I'm right here with you,
| whoever you are.
| [deleted]
| jt2190 wrote:
| From an April 17 Twitter thread from Gabriel Weinberg at
| DuckDuckGo:
|
| > ... [W]e are not "purging" YouTube-dl or The Pirate Bay and
| they both have actually been continuously available in our
| results if you search for them by name (which most people do).
| Our site: operator (which hardly anyone uses) is having issues
| which we are looking into.
|
| (Note that "site:" in his comment is how you restrict DDG
| searches to a specific domain e.g. "site:example.com")
|
| https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1515636218691739653
| naoqj wrote:
| Did the original complaints of those sites disappearing
| mention the usage of the site: filter?
| jt2190 wrote:
| Yes.
|
| > For example, searching for "site:thepiratebay.org" is
| supposed to return all results DuckDuckGo has indexed for
| The Pirate Bay's main domain name. In this case, there are
| none.
|
| > This whole-site removal isn't limited to The Pirate Bay
| either. When we do similar searches for ["site:1337x.to",
| "site:NYAA.se", "site:Fmovies.to", site:"Lookmovie.io"],
| and ["site:123moviesfree.net"], no results appear.
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/duckduckgo-removes-pirate-sites-
| and...
| OJFord wrote:
| That's incomplete though, when I tried it (in response to
| seeing it posted here a couple of days ago) I couldn't get
| any yt-dl.org search results, i.e. adding site: appeared to
| function correctly - no results.
| codetrotter wrote:
| >> Our site: operator (which hardly anyone uses) is having
| issues which we are looking into
|
| I noticed problems with their site: operator too earlier
| today, and still now as well. In my case, when I used it in a
| search I saw that the word "site" itself was also bolded in
| some results. So it looks like it is using the operator
| itself also as a search term, which it shouldn't.
|
| I find it surprising that hardly anyone uses it though.
| whoopdedo wrote:
| When you handle 10 million searches a day it's easy for
| even large groups of users to get lost in the crowd.
| [deleted]
| fuckcensorship wrote:
| These links should provide the additional context you're
| looking for:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31044587
|
| https://nitter.net/i/status/1515635886855233537
| icare_1er wrote:
| Maybe DDG understood that they have no purpose if all they have
| to propose is Google's bad sides and censorship, without Google's
| search power...
| pmoriarty wrote:
| DDG's selling point was always privacy.
| whoopdedo wrote:
| Still missing from Bing. So this is DDG inserting an override.
| bilkow wrote:
| I also find that searching Bing does not result in youtube-
| dl.org, only the repository, while DDG returns both, but Bing
| is not the ONLY source for DDG results, at least according to
| them.
|
| https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/so...
|
| "We also of course have more traditional links in the search
| results, which we also source from multiple partners, though
| most commonly from Bing (and none from Google)."
|
| I've tried comparing Google, Bing and DDG on a private window
| before, and I didn't find Bing and DDG more similar than Bing
| and Google. Searching for monkey:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27598329
| alyandon wrote:
| That is really strange - I just searched for both on bing.com
| and got relevant results back. Search bubble?
| whoopdedo wrote:
| Indeed. My search was done in a fresh private window on a
| computer I never typically use Bing on.
|
| Also, throughout this whole situation I always got the Github
| page as the first result for "youtube-dl".
| jug wrote:
| Or search region? I've had different results before based on
| your Bing/DDG region setting.
| behnamoh wrote:
| Sometimes when the damage is done, it's done. I'm never going to
| use DDG ever again.
|
| If this decision was because of legal pressure by Google, I don't
| see how that got resolved in a matter of days. Which means it
| wasn't because of Google, but rather a poor decision made by DDG
| management. How can people trust their product now?
| vmoore wrote:
| > I'm never going to use DDG ever again.
|
| The removals were a rarity. It's not as if you can't add a `!g`
| bang query to redirect to Google if you can't find something.
| And DDG is rampant with all sorts of stuff that shouldn't be
| there, so I don't think they're hellbent on censorship.
| behnamoh wrote:
| !g leads to Google, who also blocks yt-dl and other similar
| tools.
|
| Edit: I was wrong.
| oefrha wrote:
| Uh, what? youtube-dl.org is the first result for youtube-dl
| on Google, followed by GitHub repo, ytdl-org.github.io,
| Wikipedia, etc.
|
| TPB is the first result too. IIRC at one point searching
| for TPB only returned proxy sites, but that doesn't appear
| to be the case now.
| bqmjjx0kac wrote:
| Any source on that? I just searched both "youtube-dl" and
| "pirate bay" and got reasonable-looking results.
| ttybird2 wrote:
| You don't get "reasonable-looking" results for "pirate
| bay" on google.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| My first result is https://thepiratebay.org and the rest
| of the page is proxies.
| ttybird2 wrote:
| Weird, I only get shady proxies and the wikipedia page.
| spiderice wrote:
| > if you can't find something
|
| You don't always know what you don't know.
|
| If I don't know about YouTube-dl and I search "download
| YouTube command line", how am I going to know that ddg is
| hiding the best result from me?
|
| This definitely isn't a small annoyance kind of problem, in
| my eyes. It's a deal breaker. I'll never use ddg again. If
| they're going to censor like Google does, then I'm going to
| use Google because it generally has better results. Ddg needs
| to offer something beyond what Google offers to make up for
| their bad results, and they aren't doing that.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > Ddg needs to offer something beyond what Google offers
|
| If you're searching on google for medical terms it builds a
| profile on you, and you should be concerned that they could
| be selling that information to insurers, directly or
| indirectly.
| 14 wrote:
| I've been curious about this as a health care worker. The
| number of times I've looked up a client condition to
| better help the person I can't count. So is googles
| profile of me tainted?
| zedadex wrote:
| They probably have a good idea of what those profiles
| look like, even if they don't already know you work in
| healthcare.
| lamontcg wrote:
| I would be somewhat worried that information could be
| abused now or in the future. Since that data is
| necessarily going to be noisy, insurers probably aren't
| going to make black and white decisions based on it, but
| they could score you somewhat worse over it. You could
| maybe trust them that their algorithms would be able to
| determine that since you work in health care and are
| probably in the top 5% of people who search health terms
| that your individual data is polluted by your job, but I
| would never trust an insurer's black-box algorithms. They
| only need to be statistically correct over the
| population, they can always fuck you over individually
| and still make a fantastic profit for themselves.
|
| Is this really going on? Maybe not, but is it worth it to
| ignore the risk? Can you just use DDG so it isn't a
| question?
| 14 wrote:
| I have long ago switched to ddg but was curious about it
| as a past google user
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| probably not, because probably they also know your
| occupation, or you crossed a threshold of too many to be
| normal/direct etc.
|
| (except in reality it's less simple than "they know your
| occupation", it's a huge cloud of data points that an ai
| makes correlations and assosciations that no human
| actually knows. It means the searches would also be
| weighted by indirect things like, not only your
| occupation but your assosciations. Say you don't have the
| medical occupation, but your computer makes a lot of
| medical searches, because your roomate in your college
| dorm has a medical major etc. And right now, the ais are
| still pretty stupid and absolutely making a lot of
| obvious unsafe conclusions, but they also do get more and
| more spooky every day.)
|
| But this doesn't make it any better. If they did a
| perfectly accurate job of profiling you, that is not
| better than doing an inaccurate job.
|
| That much insight is like being married to someone, where
| they intimately know all your biases and motivations,
| know all your buttons, know how to manipulate you, know
| how to weigh any opinions you might express against their
| knowledge of where you got every idea you ever had,
|
| except it isn't a marriage, and they aren't subject to
| all that same vulnerability to you, and they aren't even
| a human but a corporation, and they have this intimate
| knowledge of everyone not just one spouse or sibling or
| best friend.
| ufo wrote:
| The official stance according to DDG was that it was a bug and
| they fixed it.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Funny how none of these random "bugs" never delist major
| mainstream media.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Would you even know if DDG stopped returning results for
| site:cnn.com?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-17 23:00 UTC)