620
EU Search engine incoming: Ecosia is teaming up with Qwant to build a European search index (blog.ecosia.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/buyfromeu@feddit.org
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For the people who have not yet decided on a search engine. The most EU way you can go is Ecosia or Qwant as they are building their own search index.

Ecosia is my personal pick as its also aimed at planting trees and they have quite a good browser alongside it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Now if only anyone of them would offer a paid ad-free option. I'd drop Kagi in an instant

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I use Kagi because of their strong stance against censorship. If I want to find information about controversial topics, I expect my search engine to give me the results it has crawled. I use this community test list to determine if they're censoring results. Most search engines fail this now. I imagine any EU search engine will fail this on day one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why do you imagine that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The EU has made numerous moves towards restricting free speech and communication over the last decade, especially in the technology space. These include:

    1. Digital Services Act (DSA) (2022)

    • The DSA imposes strict regulations on large online platforms and search engines (such as Google and Meta).

    • Requires platforms to remove "illegal content" quickly, though the definition of illegal content varies by country.

    • Mandates content moderation transparency but can pressure platforms to suppress speech preemptively.

    • Enables regulators to demand access to platform algorithms and recommend content moderation changes.

    • Forces messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal to comply with EU orders, potentially compromising end-to-end encryption.

    1. Digital Markets Act (DMA) (2022)

    • Primarily aimed at tech monopolies, but also affects search engines and app stores.

    • Limits the ability of platforms to rank their own services higher (e.g., Google prioritizing its own results).

    • Forces companies like Apple to open up iMessage to other messaging services, potentially impacting security.

    1. Terrorist Content Online Regulation (2021)

    • Requires platforms to remove flagged terrorist content within one hour or face heavy fines.

    • No clear appeals process, raising concerns about automatic censorship by algorithms.

    • Governments can demand removals across all EU member states, limiting national sovereignty over content moderation.

    1. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (2018)

    • Although GDPR focuses on privacy, it has been used to delist certain search results (right to be forgotten).

    • Some critics argue that GDPR can be weaponized to suppress critical information about public figures.

    1. Copyright Directive (2019) – Article 17 (formerly Article 13)

    • Requires platforms to filter copyrighted content before it is uploaded.

    • Forces platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook to proactively block content using automated filters, which often lead to false positives and excessive censorship.

    • Criticized for making memes and satire more difficult to share due to automated copyright enforcement.

    1. EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018, revised 2022)

    • Although voluntary at first, compliance with fact-checking and disinformation policies is now mandatory under the DSA.

    • Forces social media companies to demonetize or downrank "misinformation," often without clear definitions.

    • Involves close cooperation with government-backed fact-checkers, raising concerns about political bias.

    1. Chat Control Legislation (Proposed in 2022)

    • Requires messaging platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal) to scan private messages for child abuse content.

    • Critics argue this destroys end-to-end encryption, making all private communication vulnerable.

    • Could lead to mass surveillance under the guise of child protection.

    1. Political Ads Transparency Act (2023)

    • Requires all online political ads to be labeled and traceable.

    • Platforms must track funding sources, but unclear definitions of political content could impact activism and independent journalism.

    • Could be used to limit grassroots campaigns that lack formal funding structures.

    1. Media Freedom Act (2023)

    • Gives the EU more oversight over media ownership and state influence on journalism.

    • Some journalists worry it could be used to pressure media outlets to align with EU narratives.

    These are just the laws. There have been uncounted statements by EU leaders about greater control over the kind of information they wish to allow transmitted in the EU. All of these Acts are rooted in good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. At minimum, a significant portion of the results in the test list above would be banned under existing legislation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I can imagine the prompt to generate this:

    1. Make a list of EU regulations that apply to tech giants and explain what they are.
    2. For each of the regulations add one example that oversimplifies the potential downsides
    3. Ommit any advantages

    A troll trolling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The user asked why I believed the EU would ban sites. I gave them the answer. Why would you expect me to reply with something unrelated to their question? You just don't like that a) I'm correct - the EU would immediately ban sites on their search engine, and b) you're comfortable with the government telling you which books you're allowed to read. I'm not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Courtesy of Groq:

    Here is the list of EU regulations that apply to tech giants, along with an oversimplification of potential downsides and an example for each:

    1. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * Applies to the processing of personal data of EU citizens * Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to dive deep into ocean of red tape to comply with GDPR, causing unnecessary delays and increased costs" * Example: Facebook's struggles to comply with GDPR led to the temporary shutting down of its facial recognition feature.
    1. European Electronic Communications Code (EECC)
      • Regulates online communication services, including messaging and voice calls
      • Oversimplification: "Tech giants are strangled by unnecessary bureaucracy, stifling innovation and damaging their ability to compete"
      • Example: The EECC's stricter regulation of online messaging apps has been criticized for hindering the development of new services.
    2. e-Privacy Regulation
      • Regulates online communication and data sharing
      • Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to build costly and complex systems to comply with e-Privacy, diverting resources away from actual innovation"
      • Example: The e-Privacy Regulation's requirement for granular consent from users has been criticized for being overly burdensome and potentially weakening online security.
    3. Platform Regulation (Digital Services Act)
      • Regulates online platforms and their liability for user-generated content
      • Oversimplification: "Tech giants are held accountable for everything, good and bad, on their platforms, leading to unfair punishment for "thought crimes""
      • Example: The Platform Regulation's " terrorists' materials" provision has been criticized for being too broad and potentially stifling free speech.
    4. Copyright Directive (Article 17)
      • Regulates the use of copyrighted material on online platforms
      • Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to become copyright police, deleting perfectly legitimate content and stifling creativity"
      • Example: The Copyright Directive's "filtering" requirement has been criticized for being overly broad and potentially leading to the removal of legitimate content.
    5. Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)
      • Regulates online video content, including streaming services
      • Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to pander to the lowest common denominator, sacrificing artistic freedom for the sake of censorship"
      • Example: The AVMSD's restrictions on content considered "harmful" has been criticized for being too vague and potentially stifling artistic expression.
    6. Transparency and Accountability (TAMANDO)
      • Requires tech giants to be transparent about their algorithms and decision-making processes
      • Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to reveal their trade secrets, handing over the keys to their kingdom to competitors and regulators"
      • Example: The TAMANDO's requirement for algorithmic transparency has been criticized for being overly broad and potentially leading to the disclosure of sensitive information.

    Please note that these oversimplifications are intentionally exaggerated to highlight potential downsides, but the actual regulations and their implementation likely have more nuances and benefits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ah yes, because regulations are so horrible, right?

    It stands in the way of "innovation".

    God forbid we protect our citizens!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I have whiplash. You've gone from an implied "that's not happening" to "okay so it's happening, and here's why it's a good thing!" Why feign ignorance if you knew that I was correct?

    I don't believe any government has the right to restrict which books and news sites I should be allowed to access. I think I am the best person to decide which knowledge I should have access to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes. By default we don't want any government intervention. But the "government overreach" needs to be addressed on the specific cases where it happens.

    I don't believe any government has the right to restrict which books and news sites I should be allowed to access. I think I am the best person to decide which knowledge I should have access to.

    While this statement is true sometimes, it is also again an oversimplification. I don't think even you believe this. If a website contains illegal content, would you really prefer for the government to not intervene?

    Classic examples would be the sale of hard drugs and child pictures.

    We all agree more than we disagree. But communication is hard and most subjects, especially the hard ones, are not black and white.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That's a fair and nuanced take. You're right that there should be some exceptions for illegal content, but my line is clearly much further into the freedom spectrum than the EU has drawn that line. To roll up to my original claim: they would immediately ban many sites on any search engine they created, and they would do so for many reasons I am uncomfortable with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    @JasSmith @madjo Lemme guess... 'Cause 'Murica is the only country that knows freedom?

    If things like that are censored it usually happens on the ISP level, not at the search engine. Those "censored" pages might rank lower but there could be dozens of perfectly fine explanations for that. Mostly because some of those pages know diddly squat about SEO or their pages might be socially relevant but are really bad at / for driving ad revenue.

    But calling that "censorship" is IMHO not correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    No I mean actual censorship. For example, RT and Sputnik. They have also banned PressTV and CGTN. They suspended broadcast licenses for EADaily / Eurasia Daily, Fondsk, Lenta, NewsFront, RuBaltic, SouthFront, Strategic Culture Foundation, and Krasnaya Zvezda / Tvzvezda. All of these sites would be explicitly banned from any EU based search engine.

    Note that I am not giving American tech companies a free pass here. Google is one of the worst.

    Also note that "censorship" doesn't exclusively refer to government censorship. That is an American-centric perspective using the Constitution as the lens. Censorship is often conducted by individuals and organisations. In this case I am referring to the EU.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Pretty much all of those """news""" sources have been witnessed to spread complete fabrications and fake news, and were used to undermine democracy on this continent, much like how Fox News and the likes are actively undermining democracy across the pond by spreading lies as "opinion pieces".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago*

    How quickly we shift from "it's not happening" to "okay it's happening, and here's why it's a good thing!" It's fine that you prefer the government to choose which information you're allowed to view. I don't. I believe I should be allowed access to all information, and I should be allowed to choose what I want to read. I think banning books and websites and news is wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    @JasSmith Well there is a whole discussion to be had about banning media who is spouting lie after lie after lie and are propaganda machines for the respective regimes.

    But before you just assume censorship... try it yourself. I can open rt.com, tass etc and search for them.

    Sometimes the search result are all nerfed to hell, but they are there.

    And some pages (Zwezda) seem to have blocked access from my country at least, but that's on their site & RT does not have a valid certificate...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    rt.com is blocked for me. If you can access it and you're based in the EU it means you're using a foreign DNS provider like 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8.

    I understand well the arguments used by governments to restrict access to books and websites. I reject them. I believe I am the best person to decide which knowledge I am allowed to access. I am certainly far more qualified than the government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    @JasSmith And you fall in trap many intelligent people fall into... just because YOU may be qualified to discern what is lie and what is truth and know how to verify sources properly, does not mean that the majority of people does and that is where we need legislation to take the helm to prevent greater damage to society as a whole.

    "The masses have no habit of self-reliance or original action"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's a perfectly valid ideological divide here, so I can't tell you you're "wrong." I would argue that in order to believe that democracy is valid, one must subscribe to the belief in individual agency. That is, the ability for people to make rational decisions about not only themselves, but their society. If one believes that, they should believe that the same people must have access to as much knowledge as they wish - especially if it's from the guys who oppose the current people in power. Democracy fails to function if the people in power can suppress criticism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    @JasSmith BTW... changing your DNS provider is a piece of cake, so censorship on that level would not be very effective unless ALL DNS providers would decide to block something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I work in IT so I can confidently inform you that the vast majority of people do not change their DNS providers. Very few people would know how. Recall that my comment above is not about how easy circumventing censorship is, it was about the censorship existing at all, and how the EU would censor results in a search engine they create.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •