I would not call Matt Cutts a random person who's opinion is unworthy of
consideration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Cutts
In the Ycombinatory thread, Matt Cutts tells us, "In the past I believe I've
seen search ad links on DDG that included my IP address in the URL." He's
answering a question about DDG's technical competence in protecting user
privacy with a great big, no way. Yes, Cutts works for Google but everything
else I've seen from him has been both honest and accurate.
As for Jeff Jarvis, would you say that I have not accurately relayed his
annoyance at being spammed by DDG? If you are going to quote him, please
quote that part too,
"I'm appalled that I just got email from someone flacking for DuckDuckGo
exploiting the current NSA story. I guess there is no solidarity in Silicon
Valley. ... the problem here isn't Google and using this to try to attack
your competition is unseemly. The problem here is government. I have a new
name for DuckDuckGo but it's too obvious and I won't use it."
I consider Jeff Jarvis a senior, experienced and well respected journalist
with an opinion worth quoting. He is, "Author of "Public Parts: How Sharing
in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live" and "What Would Google
Do?" Director of the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism at the
City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Blogs at
Buzzmachine.com and writes for the Guardian. Formerly creator and founding
editor of Entertainment Weekly; president and creative director of
Advance.net; Sunday editor and associate publisher of the NY Daily News;
columnist on the San Francisco Examiner."
It's true that I agree with Jarvis about DDG's spam and that I, perhaps not
Jarvis, see DDG's mentioning of Google's cooperation with the NSA as a Google
smear. Microsoft is a willing NSA partner and a much greater collaborator
than Google is. Is there a reporter on Earth who does not know that Google
is a search engine? A journalist covering PRISM? Microsoft has a long
history of ridiculous efforts to influence journalists in similar ways about
things that might make Microsoft look as bad as they are, my favorite being
to call every Microsoft virus a "computer" virus while making disigner bug
pages to promote really rare GNU, Linux, and Android bugs. What would you
think if I said, "I'm a commenter (like Magic Bannana) that doesn't
_list_of_horribles_. _big_improbable_unverifiable_boast_" It was nasty and
wrong for them to slam a competitor rather than simply explain themselves,
"You'll be interested to hear about DDG. We're a search engine that does not
track users. ..." A PR person should know that, and how much what they did
write would irritate people, better than anyone else.
It is also true that I cite my own collection of facts and opinions about
DDG. What should I do, rewrite it everytime the subject comes up?
Thank you for taking the time to read it and point out some ways it can be
improved. I will make make the attribution and quoting better and maybe
include a few new links to better document Microsoft problems. It's not my
favorite thing to do, but it's worth doing.
