Has DuckDuckGo been compromised?

A couple years ago, I took interest in DuckDuckGo while looking for alternatives to Google’s products and services. DuckDuckGo’s appeal was that it was a search engine that protects the privacy of its users, and that search results from DuckDuckGo faced relatively little censorship.

That last point is particularly important when looking for news outlets, as mainstream search engines usually prop up corporate information media with a clear left-wing bias. When a search engine is being trusted to provide information sources, and the corporate entity providing the search engine has a left-wing bias, there’s a clear conflict of interest, and they cannot be trusted to provide honest, unfiltered results.

While privacy is important, what’s especially important to me is that search results, particularly news results, remain unfiltered by the political biases of those presenting the information. In recent times, it has been especially challenging to find search engines that aren’t only pro-privacy, but also free speech.

It’s because of this that it’s disturbing that DuckDuckGo has been making donations to far-left groups, as was pointed out in the following video:

If you’re trusting a search engine such as DuckDuckGo to keep you informed as to what’s really happening in the world, it should be relevant to you that the same search engine may be making substantial donations to groups focused on ensuring that news outlets are presenting exclusively left-wing perspectives.

If you’re interested in something more tangible, I’ve conducted a simple, trivial experiment to see what sources pop up when running the search term, news, then opening the “News” tab. I performed this experiment using the DuckDuckGo search engine, and the following list is of the first ten sources:

  • CNN
  • ABC
  • TechCrunch
  • Business Insider
  • Forbes
  • Washington Post
  • Business Insider
  • Reuters
  • YAHOO
  • ABC

All of which are corporate sources, typically propped up by big tech, and whose appeal is to your parents and grandparents, who remember with rose-colored glasses the days of old when corporate media had uncontested control of information.

Next, I did the same with Yippy, a search engine that provides relevant results by grouping results into clusters. Here are the first ten news sources:

  • InfoWars
  • OANN
  • NY Post
  • Breitbart
  • Washington Examiner
  • Fox News
  • Media ITE
  • Townhall
  • InfoWars
  • OANN

InfoWars is pretty far from my first source of news. But putting that aside, I notice that this is an eclectic mix from a broad spectrum of political positions. Better still, these are mostly new media outlets, more relevant in today’s more connected world.

Out of curiousity, I decided to do the same with Google.

  • The Guardian
  • CNN
  • NPR
  • BBC News
  • Business Insider
  • NBC News
  • Seattle Times
  • BBC News
  • CNN
  • The Guardian

More of the three-letter networks, all presenting the exact same product with the exact same bias.

The internet, as it was in the 2000s, was a huge, free-and-open marketplace of ideas, permeated by diversity of thought. Today, if the internet were to be presented by to you by DuckDuckGo and Google, you’d be hearing the same idea over and over again, continually delivered by the same professional liars.

Because big tech has long-since been subverted by the far left in a manner reminiscent of Hydra’s infiltration of S.H.I.E.L.D., it’s easy to be black-pilled into thinking that any attempt to make a free speech platform would be self-defeating, considering an inevitable subversion funded from the enormous wealth of the hot-tub elites of big tech. As they are today, the free speech advocates of the intellectual dark web don’t have the kind of sophistication as those looking for any excuse to silence them.

Rather than lose hope, what we should take from developments like this is that, as the free-speech advocates and diverse thinkers of the digital age, we have to be willing to change things up when one platform loses its viability.

Similarly, if a church-goer discovers that his church has doctrines that are in direct contradiction of the Scriptures, would he continually attend, knowing full-well that the sermons are lying to him? Would he continue to tithe, knowing that he was funding deceit?

As a preventative measure, free-speech platforms should make a policy of gatekeeping when it comes to positions of influence in the company, to ensure that those who can influence the direction of the company has the company’s philosophy in mind. After all, if a company’s philosophy is lost, that company loses its reason to exist, and becomes yet another corporate husk that justifies its existence solely through profits, competing with dozens of other media companies offering the exact same product in the short time they have left.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s