On 2024-07-14, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> On 7/14/24 09:46, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-07-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you ever google something using DuckDuckGo?
>>
>> Nope. I'm trying to live as Google-free as possible -
>> why should I give them free advertising?
>
> Charlie here 'google' is being used as slang
> or argot for 'search'. When you search on DuckDuckGo
> you are not using Google.
> I too resist Google, the great big advertising
> agency and always search with DDG. It is a choice on
> Firefox. SeaMonkey and Mercury browsers.

I understand all that. However, in my attempt to boycott
Google (which I realize will never be completely successful),
I at least try to minimize any references to it (which is
what I meant by free advertising above).

I once worked with a fellow who had formerly worked for
Scott Paper. You should have heard him whenever anyone
used "kleenex" in a generic form...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | the first society that wouldn't
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | save itself because it wasn't
/ \ if you read it the right way. | cost-effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:30:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 01:21 this Monday (GMT):
>
>> On 14 Jul 2024 20:22:42 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:20:07 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, isn't there a legal thing where like if a name becomes part of
>>>> common vocabulary, then you lose the trademark?
>>>
>>> Very seldom happens if you keep defending the trademark.
>>
>> You have to keep insisting that people stop using the trademark as a
>> generic term. Sometimes it’s an unwinnable campaign.
>
> I'm pretty sure Google and Photoshop are close to generic terms at this
> point.

IANAL, but very likely in the grey area, at least.

On 7/15/24 1:19 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:30:25 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>
>> I too resist Google, the great big advertising
>> agency and always search with DDG. It is a choice on Firefox. SeaMonkey
>> and Mercury browsers.
>
> I use Brave and generally go with the Brave search.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_Search
>
> I do use DDG if I have Firefox open but have noticed DDG tends to be a
> wrapper on Bing.
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13451223/Microsoft-outage-
> Bing-DuckDuckGo-ChatGPT-thousands-users.html
>
> DDG does have other sources it indexes.

While it would be great to completely avoid
Goog and M$, this just isn't practical. Those
engines are now so HUGE and quick that even
DDG is going to use them by proxy. The only
good bit is that DDG disguises YOUR identity
so Goog cannot easily monitor/target your stuff.

Future worry - Goog and M$ don't necessarily HAVE
to let DDG and related use them for searches. One
greedy itch and it's Goog or NOTHING worth a damn.
It is very difficult to create even a tiny spot
in the world where money doesn't rule - Ok, maybe
China, but there the STATE rules and spies on your
every keystroke with bad intent ........

Aww ... I see AltaVista now takes you to Yahoo :-(

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, 26yh.0712 wrote:

> On 7/15/24 1:19 AM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:30:25 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>
>>> I too resist Google, the great big advertising
>>> agency and always search with DDG. It is a choice on Firefox. SeaMonkey
>>> and Mercury browsers.
>>
>> I use Brave and generally go with the Brave search.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_Search
>>
>> I do use DDG if I have Firefox open but have noticed DDG tends to be a
>> wrapper on Bing.
>>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13451223/Microsoft-outage-
>> Bing-DuckDuckGo-ChatGPT-thousands-users.html
>>
>> DDG does have other sources it indexes.
>
>
> While it would be great to completely avoid
> Goog and M$, this just isn't practical. Those
> engines are now so HUGE and quick that even
> DDG is going to use them by proxy. The only
> good bit is that DDG disguises YOUR identity
> so Goog cannot easily monitor/target your stuff.
>
> Future worry - Goog and M$ don't necessarily HAVE
> to let DDG and related use them for searches. One
> greedy itch and it's Goog or NOTHING worth a damn.
> It is very difficult to create even a tiny spot
> in the world where money doesn't rule - Ok, maybe
> China, but there the STATE rules and spies on your
> every keystroke with bad intent ........
>
> Aww ... I see AltaVista now takes you to Yahoo :-(
>

I think there would be some kind of antitrust procedure if one or two of
them started to cut off third party search engines.

Perhaps, in the end, we'll revert to the classic, eternal beauty of
dmoz.org? It no longer works but it was one of those directories curated
by humans.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> Perhaps, in the end, we'll revert to the classic, eternal beauty of
> dmoz.org? It no longer works but it was one of those directories curated
> by humans.

It's reborn at curlie.org, though unfortunately they keep making
the website worse. I'm sure in someone's opinion it's
better/prettier or maybe more smartphone compatible, but in
lightweight browsers it now borders on unusable. I used to like
dmoz.org a lot more (of course the links have become more out of
date since it was online too).

I saw once that the data is available to download, and have been
tempted to try implementing my own interface, but that's probably
something I'd spend more time working on than actually using.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 7/16/24 5:18 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, 26yh.0712 wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/24 1:19 AM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:30:25 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>
>>>>     I too resist Google, the great big advertising
>>>> agency and always search with DDG.  It is a choice on Firefox.
>>>> SeaMonkey
>>>> and Mercury browsers.
>>>
>>> I use Brave and generally go with the Brave search.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_Search
>>>
>>> I do use DDG if I have Firefox open but have noticed DDG tends to be a
>>> wrapper on Bing.
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13451223/Microsoft-outage-
>>>
>>> Bing-DuckDuckGo-ChatGPT-thousands-users.html
>>>
>>> DDG does have other sources it indexes.
>>
>>
>>  While it would be great to completely avoid
>>  Goog and M$, this just isn't practical. Those
>>  engines are now so HUGE and quick that even
>>  DDG is going to use them by proxy. The only
>>  good bit is that DDG disguises YOUR identity
>>  so Goog cannot easily monitor/target your stuff.
>>
>>  Future worry - Goog and M$ don't necessarily HAVE
>>  to let DDG and related use them for searches. One
>>  greedy itch and it's Goog or NOTHING worth a damn.
>>  It is very difficult to create even a tiny spot
>>  in the world where money doesn't rule - Ok, maybe
>>  China, but there the STATE rules and spies on your
>>  every keystroke with bad intent ........
>>
>>  Aww ... I see AltaVista now takes you to Yahoo  :-(
>>
>
> I think there would be some kind of antitrust procedure if one or two of
> them started to cut off third party search engines.

Maybe ... but with the $$$ Goog and M$ can bring
to it ... well ...... might be a hopeless, or at
least eternal, battle.

> Perhaps, in the end, we'll revert to the classic, eternal beauty of
> dmoz.org? It no longer works but it was one of those directories curated
> by humans.

Too small for modern needs. The present/future of "search"
is a MASSIVE database with a MASSIVE distributed server farm
and a LOT of "AI" being used. No 99-cent op can even remotely
compete. Sorry.

Hey, you can revive the print "Yellow Pages" ....

This is one of the evolving, inevitable, PROBLEMS
of the "digital age".