This thread is permanently archived
What do you think about Qwant?
| We don't think about qwant. Qwant thinks for us.
| >>840291 i just typed my nickname in it fromc curiosity.. and why it's showed me japanese wikis of things what are having english equialent wtf xd
| Let's check it.
Is it free (as in free beer)?
yes
Is it free (as in freedom) or at least does it promote things based on this concept?
No.
Is it a private company?
Yes.
How do private companies work?
By making profit from selling products.
How does one make profit with a product that is free (as in free beer)?
...
-> Test failed.
| >>840373
Your assesment is flawed because not all private companies are exploitative or even bad for you. That's a naive mindset to have desu.
>>840291
It's based in Europe so you get some protection due to European privacy laws. They also don't use cookies, like, at all, which is kinda cool. They claim they don't use any tracking technology whatsoever and since no proof has been found of the contrary there's really no reason to jump to conclusions just yet. So far so good imo.
| >claims to be based in EU
>not .eu
it's shit
also no .onion
| Seems okay from a usability standpoint but the real test is googling technical concepts with it and seeing if it fails worse than modern Google or not
| >>840399
>Your assesment is flawed because not all private companies are exploitative or even bad for you. That's a naive mindset to have desu.
That's your opinion. I see it the other way around. It's naive to think that a company has values and goals that go beyond increasing its profit. That's nothing but marketing mumbo-jumbo. At least companies which put ethical standards over profit will not be able to compete with those who give a fuck on the long term.
| >>840399
A "company" that's not looking to wring cash out of you is called a "non-profit" or a "foundation", which I don't think this? Idk, the page just say "Unfortunately we are not yet available in your country."
| I tried to go to their about page but I think it's French
| >>840706
Here's your second *facepalm*. If you believe that every company is 100% evil and exploative before you've even research how they operate you're doing yourself an intellectual disservice. Blanket cynisism isn't a substitute for being well-read, you know.
It's tiresome talking to "people" like you so I'm gonna go back to ignoring you.
>>840777
https://about.qwant.com/en/ Works on my machine.
| >>840826
Hey g/u/rl you're the one strawmanning that anyone in this thread is saying "companies are 100% exploitative". I'm just saying "companies always need money from you" and the g/u/rl you were replying to only said "companies make profit by selling products so it's sus that the only product they provide is free".
Which, honestly? It really is kinda sus. They gotta make profit somehow.
| >>840826 I think I went to the about then company on mobile and it was a French link possibly they just forgot to localize that link
| >>840519
If I compare it to other privacy minded search engines then ddgs approach seem to yield better results.
What do y'all think of ecosia? Their idea is interesting to say the least.
https://www.ecosia.org/
| I know nothing about it but my gf uses it
| >>841006
The company makes money through commissions it receives when users visit advertised websites, such as eBay and Tripadvisor. Which is neither exploative nor "kinda sus". It also does not employ user tracking or personalize search results which means you're not a product that can be sold.
You should research this stuff *BEFORE* you open your mouth to judge a company's revenue stream and morals, *not* after.
| >>840826
>If you believe that every company is 100% evil
You're the first one who said this here. Profit orientation and exploitation is no question of good and evil intention in the first place. It's a system inherent constraint for any economical action within it. It just wouldn't make sense to found a company which is not making profit. Else you would found a non-profit organization (which often serve making profit too with shady tricks, but this is a different story)
| >>841244
>The company makes money through commissions it receives when users visit advertised websites
And how does it technically work not to track users while properly evaluating their visit counts on the advertised websites?
Is the way how the search engine operates open accessible, e.g. to ensure that it doesn't prioritize results that gives its provider higher commission (which usually is based on information gained through tracking)?
| >>841244
No one is judging anyone here. I'm just pointing out something I feel suspicious about.
Thank you for the information by the way. I've been casually browsing their company's site and I didn't find them saying they earned commission that way. Where did you find out?
| A reminder of the word ‘ultracrepidarian’ (19th century): someone who loves to hold forth/criticise on matters they know next to nothing about.
| what was this made with
| >>841244
>The company makes money through commissions it receives when users visit advertised websites
Where did you get this from?
>You should research this stuff *BEFORE* you open your mouth to judge a company's revenue stream and morals, *not* after.
Profit driven production is the fundament of our global economical system. The only exceptions are public and explicit non-profit oriented institutions.
| feeble glowie attempt at getting me on a glowie service.
| cringe cope bluepill soy shilling
This thread is permanently archived
| https://www.qwant.com/