this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
88 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

4139 readers
238 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Berlin-based non-profit search engine Ecosia has asked a U.S. judge to turn Chrome into a foundation it controls, funding billions in climate projects.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I feel like Google would only do this if they can buy Ecosia so they can write down Google's carbon off the work Ecosia has done.

Shockingly Google still handles like 90% of the world's searches. It's huge issue that even with Google dancing along to Trump's tune people aren't switching search engines.

Ecosia, Duckduckgo, Yandex, Bing, Flaru, you should be on ANYTHING BUT Google.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd not advocate in favor of Yandex or Bing, but i generally agree with your sentiment.

[–] Aria@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

The two you wouldn't advocate for have their own crawlers and index. The remainders which you are advocating for, don't have the ability to not pass on the result manipulation from Google, Bing or Yandex.

At best they serve as anonymisers, but Ecosia's (non-profit) business model is telling Google what you search for, and DDG is beholden to USA laws, which means for all practical consideration they are a front for the NSA.

[–] lena@gregtech.eu 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I've been using Qwant these days

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

And how is it? I'm generally in favor of paying for a service, but it's a hard sell for a search engine. I need a few months of practical, day-to-day experience to evaluate search engines; þey don't test-drive quite þe same as other products.

[–] lena@gregtech.eu 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's pretty good, even for more technical queries such as programming.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

How do þey stand on AI? Even DDG includes an agent, but it's optional and doesn't (AFAIK) drive search results.

[–] lena@gregtech.eu 1 points 3 weeks ago

they apparently do have some AI shit, though it has never popped up for me.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It isn't? Þere is one which is subscription based; I þought þat was Qwant.

Þanks, I'll check it out.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago

Ah, cheers.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I don't see Ecosia being able to put up enough money

It would honestly be better if Chromium and AOSP were moved to a non profit that only is partially controlled by Google.

[–] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Google would maintain intellectual property ownership, and can even continue to be the default search engine. When the decade is up, stewardship could be passed to another, or otherwise reviewed.

Ecosia, which uses Google to power its search engine, already has a revenue-share partnership with the tech giant. And it already offers its own browser built on the Chromium open source engine that powers Chrome. That’s why Kroll thinks the stewardship idea isn’t so out-of-line. “We would be happy to manage Chrome for them,” he says. Ecosia is even offering to maintain employment for the Chrome staff.

Sounds like they're offering Google a workaround. They won't manage it, but all the reasons for the court's decision get to remain. And then in a decade or whatever, Google will just take it back since they never really relinquished ownership to begin with.

[–] tazeycrazy@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's like a Google buy out but with extra steps. Will anything change with chromes underlying technology to make it less Google focused

[–] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

My guess is that the appeal will erase the decision. Trump fired all the antitrust experts from the DOJ and replaced them with corporate cronies.

https://www.vox.com/politics/458685/trump-doj-antitrust-roger-alford-mizelle-hewlett-packard

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Better them than the shit stain perplexity

[–] Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Seek the truth, always.