PM Search Partnership?

[Pallid Planetoid]

It has been my (apparently false) understanding that Mojeek was recommend (at some point and I thought became the "default" search engine) and as such I've assumed there to be a partnership between PM and Mojeek.

Now I'm seeing there is actually a partnership with DDG (apparently).

So is PM partnering with DDG? (I'm unable to find a search result directly stipulating this beyond a reference as such in the recently fixed 'help support' announcement) -- and then is DDG the "default" -- when did this all start? (if the search partnership is with DDG - then I'll switch w/add blocking off).

If this topic should have been placed in the "General Discussion" board (or perhaps some other board) - sorry, feel free to move to where the topic belongs.

[Moonchild]

It has been my (apparently false) understanding that Mojeek was recommend (at some point and I thought became the "default" search engine)

No. Mojeek asked to be added to the browser and since they are completely independent I thought it was a good match. It was never default or recommended over any other.

I've assumed there to be a partnership between PM and Mojeek.

They indicated that they would reach out for revenue share if it would become prudent. But there has been no further communication so there has not been any partnership other than me agreeing to have them included in the default lineup in the browser. The project gets nothing out of it.

Now I'm seeing there is actually a partnership with DDG (apparently).

There is and has been! I thought I've always been clear about that.

So is PM partnering with DDG? (I'm unable to find a search result directly stipulating this beyond a reference as such in the recently fixed 'help support' announcement) -- and then is DDG the "default" -- when did this all start? (if the search partnership is with DDG - then I'll switch w/add blocking off).

Yes, and it has been the case ever since Google yanked our contract claiming Pale Moon was a "browser extension" as an excuse to retroactively not pay what was a competitor to Chrome. if you want a date: since 24.4.0 (2014-03-10). Yes almost 10 years. We were there when DDG was still a growing startup.

[tooshorttoolong]

Do we need "?t=palemoon" in the DDG search URL for the partnership to be taken into account?

I only have one DDG search engine in my Pale Moon, which I think I added myself, but it does not have that parameter.

[Moonchild]

Do we need "?t=palemoon" in the DDG search URL for the partnership to be taken into account?

Yes! Since there is no other tracking involved it's the only way DDG knows to attribute the search to Pale Moon.

[Pallid Planetoid]

FYI - Ixquick (that is offered as a search engine on the PM search plugin page) is no longer available because startpage stopped supporting this search engine (attempting to use it will get redirected to the "Startpage" search engine that is already present on the PM "search plugin" page thus the two search engines on the PM "search plugin" page are redundant).

It crossed my mind, in place of Ixquick, to consider adding the ghostery search engine (especially if a "partnership" were possible) - but it looks like this will perhaps not work on Pale Moon.

[Pallid Planetoid]

Do we need "?t=palemoon" in the DDG search URL for the partnership to be taken into account?

Yes! Since there is no other tracking involved it's the only way DDG knows to attribute the search to Pale Moon.

I noticed while doing searches (this morning while searching Ixquick where I found the information posted above) the "?t=palemoon" parameter is already present in the DDG search URL - example: "https://duckduckgo.com/?t=palemoon&q=ixquick&ia=web" (presumably the parameter is present as a result of adding the search engine using the PM "search plugin" page -- thus not done "manually"). Note addendum (below) - DDG is a default search engine that obviously includes the "?t=palemoon" parameter - which is why the parameter is present.

Edit (addendum): Just noticed on the PM "search plugin" page the following (at the bottom of the page):
The following search plugins are already included by default in Pale Moon and thus cannot be listed here as they would conflict: DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, Bing, Ecosia, Twitter, and Wikipedia.

If you removed a default search plugin and want to get it back you can go into "Manage Search Engines" and Restore defaults. This will repopulate the list with all the default search engines but will NOT remove any that you have added.

In regards to the reference to "DuckDuckGo" as one of a number of "default" search engines included with PM (as long as you don't delete them) I'm striking out what does not apply in my original post (in as much as DDG cannot be added via the PM "search plugin" page because it is not included on the page).

[Pallid Planetoid]

@ tooshorttoolong - based on my addendum info above - you can simply go into "Manage Search Engines" and Restore defaults. This will repopulate the list with all the default search engines but will NOT remove any that you have added - in order to get back DDG with the paramater. (You may want to remove the redundant DDG that you added manually)

[tooshorttoolong]

@ tooshorttoolong - based on my addendum info above - you can simply go into "Manage Search Engines" and Restore defaults. This will repopulate the list with all the default search engines but will NOT remove any that you have added - in order to get back DDG with the paramater. (You may want to remove the redundant DDG that you added manually)

Yes, I did that because I couldn’t find a way to edit the existing search engines…

[Pallid Planetoid]

Yea - I know, there isn't a way to edit search engines that I'm aware of...

Oh and regards to another point; I wish there were ways to add search engines (manually) beyond what PM offers on its "search plugin' page - tried an add-on for this at some point in the past, but couldn't get it to work.

Btw, how DID you add DDG "manually" (that you mentioned you had done, that because of doing it yourself - didn't have the parameter)? (maybe you did it a long time ago before PM started limiting search engines to its "search plugin" page - because I recall at some point in the past search engines COULD BE added "manually" w/out restrictions).

[tooshorttoolong]

Btw, how DID you add DDG "manually" (that you mentioned you had done, that because of doing it yourself - didn't have the parameter)? (maybe you did it a long time ago before PM started limiting search engines to its "search plugin" page - because I recall at some point in the past search engines COULD BE added "manually" w/out restrictions).

I don’t remember, but I had a "Add to search bar" addon installed so that might be how I did it.
However that addon doesn’t work anymore so I just replaced it with Add as search engine which appears to work fine. Still no way to edit the search url though…

[suzyne]

Still no way to edit the search url though…

In my Pale Moon program folder on Windows there is a file here:

Code: Select all

\Palemoon\browser\searchplugins\duckduckgo-palemoon.xml

The XML file can be opened as plain text and shows the required parameter. But if DuckDuckGo Search was added in some other way, you may need to start looking in your equivalent profile folder:

Code: Select all

C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\Moonchild Productions\Pale Moon\Profiles\byoufu1k.default\searchplugins\

Or open this file as plain text.

Code: Select all

C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\Moonchild Productions\Pale Moon\Profiles\byoufu1k.default\search.json

To find the definition used for the DuckDuckGo search. I don't understand the relationship between the JSON file and the XML files in the folder and why they both contain a "template" for the search (does one generate the other?) but with careful editing it should be possible to add the t=palemoon parameter to the search.

[back2themoon]

Off-topic:

The following search plugins are already included by default in Pale Moon and thus cannot be listed here as they would conflict: DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, Bing, Ecosia, Twitter, and Wikipedia.

Your coloured text does not play well with the Board's dark themes.

dt.png

[Pallid Planetoid]

Btw, how DID you add DDG "manually" (that you mentioned you had done, that because of doing it yourself - didn't have the parameter)? (maybe you did it a long time ago before PM started limiting search engines to its "search plugin" page - because I recall at some point in the past search engines COULD BE added "manually" w/out restrictions).

I don’t remember, but I had a "Add to search bar" addon installed so that might be how I did it.
However that addon doesn’t work anymore so I just replaced it with Add as search engine which appears to work fine. Still no way to edit the search url though…

Yea - I've got that add-on as well and as you say it does work (I had tried it when I first installed it and had problems getting it to work).

I added the Ghostery search engine successfully using this add-on. I'll keep using DDG with "Pale Moon" parameter as my default however to help out. I will say that I'm not that pleased with DDG however due to their changes in policy by starting to censor their engine see links below (there are literally 100's of sites on this topic - I chose to stop at 15. I included sites pushing all sides of the political spectrum and also includes DDG sites expressing DDG's opinion as well). My feeling is (if not actual "fire" one has to wonder why all the "smoke") My opinion is a "Search Engine should NOT censor in any way - and we have sites that quote the DDG CEO stating the following (for example): Like so many others I am sickened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the gigantic humanitarian crisis it continues to create. #StandWithUkraine️

At DuckDuckGo, we've been rolling out search updates that down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation.

— Gabriel Weinberg (@yegg) March 10, 2022 (CEO and founder of DDG)

So clearly there's more to this "censorship" issue by GGD than just "smoke" (just based on the comment above on X). Regardless of how "noble" the reasons for censorship might appear - "censorship" in-and-of-itself is NOT "noble". We can't let any one group or person act as the arbiter of what should or should not be censored.

Here are just 15 sites links (figured I'd stop at this round number) on this issue of DDG censorship (that I don't think we can deny there's something to this):
1) What happened when privacy-minded search engine DuckDuckGo vowed to down-rank Russian misinformation?
2) Duck duck go is now censoring even more
3) Duck Duck Gone: DuckDuckGo goes WOKE to censor search content; forcing users now flock to rival search engine Brave
4) The free speech search engine that never was
5) DuckDuckGo changes its RULES about what you see in search results
6) DuckDuckGo will demote Russian propaganda in search results (The search engine's founder said he was “sickened” by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.)
7) The DuckDuckGo Users Furious at Its Response to the War in Ukraine
8) Does DuckDuckGo censor their web searches like Google does?
9) DuckDuckGo 'down-ranks' Russian disinformation. The search engine's users are not happy.
10) DuckDuckGo Embraces Censorship, Destroys Brand
11) DuckDuckGo Is Now Censoring Search Results After A New York Times Points Out Conspiracy Uses (YouTube)
12) DuckDuckGo slammed for downrating Russian search results
13) DuckDuckGo down-ranks sites spreading Russian propaganda
14) DuckDuckGo insists it didn’t ‘purge’ piracy sites from search results
15) Does DuckDuckGo censor or otherwise politically bias their search results? (Misconceptions About DuckDuckGo) DDG website

@ Moonchild (while I'll be using DDG in PM as a way to help out PM) - what I'm wondering is (since Ghostery will work in Pale Moon in as much as I was able to add it to the browser and it works) - what about looking into (the possibility of) a "partnership" with Ghostery? -- considering it would appear at the very least DDG is (based on the DDG CEO public statements) practicing "censorship" for what the CEO states is "good" cause) as well as you've stated there's been "... a pretty sharp downward trend in what DuckDuckGo's search partnership provides to the project".

The way I see it whether excuses can be made to "censor" or not (and who's the arbiter of what should get "censored" - I say let the people decide as to what is "disinformation" as opposed to deciding for them which certainly can't be accomplished w/out full transparency.

[suzyne]

Off-topic:

I say let the people decide as to what is "disinformation"

A problem is that not everyone has the skills to make such decisions.

Taking "the Apollo moon landing was a hoax" as an example, depending on the country you are in and the age demographic, anywhere between 15% and 25% (or more!) of the population don't think that humans have set foot on the Moon. That is a huge number of people in any sizable nation who have shown that they have difficulty distinguishing fact from fantasy.

So I think it is problematic for any search engine to provide all the viewpoints with equal weightings so the user can decide what is true.

I am against censorship, but just I think my local library shouldn't have books promoting lies on the non-fiction and reference shelves, I think there is a place for curation of search results.

https://www.space.com/apollo-11-moon-landing-hoax-believers.html

[athenian200]

what about looking into (the possibility of) a "partnership" with Ghostery? -- considering it would appear at the very least DDG is (based on the DDG CEO public statements) practicing "censorship" for what the CEO states is "good" cause) as well as you've stated there's been "... a pretty sharp downward trend in what DuckDuckGo's search partnership provides to the project".

Unfortunately, there are major obstacles to any such agreement that may preclude it from being possible. Most options have one of the two following problems:

1. They have their own browser they want people to use instead of ours, as in the case of Brave or Ghostery. While DDG has recently rolled out a browser for Windows (June 2023), MC's agreement with them predates that.

2. The few search engines that are smaller, more independent, and don't offer their own bespoke browser they want people to use, tend to be very small search engines that simply don't have a lot of money to offer for a search deal.

DDG is only able to offer such high-quality results because it partners with big search players. Independent crawlers would not be able to do as good a job, and being that DDG is dependent on companies like Microsoft or Yahoo to get search results that are already pre-censored, there are likely policies they have to agree to follow to get a good deal. Plus DDG is based in the US, so if the US government leans on Microsoft to censor Russian or Chinese disinformation, then they in turn are likely putting pressure on DDG.

It just isn't an ideal situation for having to take into account the kind of concerns you guys are putting forward... but it seems that it's possible many Pale Moon users are refusing to use DDG on that basis anyway, meaning the alternatives will have to be explored sooner or later. :/

[Pallid Planetoid]

I say let the people decide as to what is "disinformation"

A problem is that not everyone has the skills to make such decisions....

Of course we can agree to disagree - I take the stand (regardless of how much of an outlier an opinion happens to be) it is in all cases very dangerous to depend upon any one entity to become the arbiter as to what should and should not be available to the general public. And by all means none of us either "individually" or as a defined "small group" should act as the "judge" as to who has the "skills" to decipher what is subjectively "accurate" or not.

In a free and open approach without arbitrary restrictions to any one specific POV -- all viewpoints will necessarily be (and should be) "judged" by each individual person in regards to how much "merit" any one specific POV will be ascribed to in light of the degree in which that POV happens to fall either within or outside of the mainstream.

In your example (we can look at the same thing from the opposite perspective) - 75-85% or more of the population you have referenced fall within what 75-85% or more of us consider "factual". Notice the one-to-on relationship to what we both presumably consider "factual" specific to those who would disagree with both of us. (and consider what that means).

The point is - this example you cite is-what-it-is - an example of an endeavor to seek the "truth" (and as we know "truth" is never exactly the same for anyone).

So the "best" and most "honest" approach (and I would add in my view the "safest" approach), from my perspective, would be to allow all viewpoints regardless of where any one POV might or might not measure up to what the majority would consider "main-stream" or not.

We have to maintain some "level of trust" that minimally the "majority" of opinions will be more accurate than not - because if you can't do this then we're potentially doomed to be taking a very dangerous path that will depend upon deciding who and who is not to decide what we are to believe or not believe.

Bottom line: It's better to run the risk that the majority will fail us than to subscribe to the notion a part of us will decide for all of us!!!

[moonbat]

Or to put it succinctly, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Better to expose crank conspiracy theories and dumb ideas to the light to be examined and debunked than to hide them away.

[suzyne]

it is in all cases very dangerous to depend upon any one entity to become the arbiter as to what should and should not be available to the general public.

Which is why having more than one search engine is important. If a user decides that they love or are loyal to their favourite search so much that they will never use another, then they probably deserve having biased information served up?

Who knows, for example, how Ghostery determines what is on the influential first page of results?

At least with DuckDuckGo the CEO has been transparent about what they did which could be seen as the opposite of dangerous, and of course anyone can use Yandex or go direct to RT News, when they want to supplement its results.

[athenian200]

At least with DuckDuckGo the CEO has been transparent about what they did which could be seen as the opposite of dangerous, and of course anyone can use Yandex or go direct to RT News, when they want to supplement its results.

This is a good point. Besides, I really think even if the CEO of DDG did say that, it doesn't really mean anything. It's most likely just an empty statement of patriotism designed to reassure their business partners that they're not going to do anything that goes against US interests despite their reputation as a privacy-focused search engine. DDG's previous partnership with Yandex probably made people wary and was an unfortunate association for them to have, so they had to take strong action to show that they don't support Russia, so as not to face increased obstacles to doing business and scrutiny from regulators and potential partners.

That said, though, we don't have to agree with what DDG does to understand that it's a source of revenue for the project. If Google hadn't kicked Pale Moon aside early on as a "browser toolbar" or whatever, it might still be the default search engine we use, and I know for sure Google doesn't align with our ideals even a little bit. DDG at least shares the overall ideal of privacy, even if it may not be aligned on censorship with all of us (in this one case, at least, where it arguably is a national security issue in some people's eyes).

[suzyne]

Better to expose crank conspiracy theories and dumb ideas to the light to be examined and debunked than to hide them away.

I don't think moon hoax theories should be hidden away.

But my local library has a finite and limited amount of shelf space, it is a small public library branch. The section for 629.4 is quite tiny, and I am lucky if there are more than a few books. If the librarian decided to have half the books promoting the moon hoax, I would be disappointed and think it is not a wise use of the shelf space.

Now the librarian doesn't believe in censorship, and I am totally free to use the online catalogue to get any book sent to the library, so I can borrow it. No one is restricting what I can read, but they do have to make decisions on what books will be put in the Space Exploration part of the shelf.

Similarly, search engines have limited space for their first and second pages of results, and just as I prefer my librarian to curate what is a limited space, I don't see a problem with a search engine doing the same. Especially, since it is so ridiculously easy and almost no effort to use another if I want to check the results.