Are most websites boycotting duckduckgo?

Every site I go to with duckduckgo, I can't download pdfs, and the scroll jerks around on its own so I have to scroll back up.

Did the browser get a bug from an update?
Do most sites hate its secrecy and try to mess it up with incompatibility?
Or did my copy just get damaged and need to be reinstalled?

My other browsers work fine everywhere.

I have not had any trouble with duckduckgo (I love it though - no ads!)

DuckDuckGo is a sellout. They harvest your data now and are on the "stop misinformation" train. Use something else.

@Tim_Pool said in #3:
> They harvest your data now and are on the "stop misinformation" train.
You're pro-misinformation?

^ so that is kind of complicated. right now in the united states, you have a pretty big push to kind of throw anything that goes against established US narrative in the 'misinformation' bin. so as a small example, on twitter, for a while they had warnings on people's profiles if they were affiliated with china state media. a narrative is being pushed really hard that basically any china- or russia-linked media just purely spreads misinformation. which, however you feel about china or russia, is just not true.

in other words, you have to ask yourself what is (and what isn't) being categorized as misinformation. and who is in charge of making that determination

@clousems said in #4:
> You're pro-misinformation?

Misinformation, at least nowadays, is a moniker for "political truth," which is an absurd phrase to begin with.

Whomever controls the media, controls what misinformation is.

@Tim_Pool said in #6:
> Misinformation, at least nowadays, is a moniker for "political truth," which is an absurd phrase to begin with.
>
> Whomever controls the media, controls what misinformation is.
Yeah it's a slippery slope, however some shit is patently false and damaging - like the narrative that the 2020 election was 'stolen' and using that narrative to incite political violence

@twighead said in #7:
> Yeah it's a slippery slope, however some shit is patently false and damaging - like the narrative that the 2020 election was 'stolen' and using that narrative to incite political violence

How many people died in the summer of love? How many people died on January 6th? How much damage was caused on May 29th? How many supreme court justices were in danger of being murdered? How many times did AOC lie about the bad man that said "WHERE IS SHE! WHERE IS SHE!"

Psychopaths, the lot of them. Don't get me wrong, plenty of dirty establishment phonies on the right, but get off your fucking high horse and smell the fucking roses.

@Tim_Pool said in #8:
> How many people died in the summer of love? How many people died on January 6th? How much damage was caused on May 29th? How many supreme court justices were in danger of being murdered? How many times did AOC lie about the bad man that said "WHERE IS SHE! WHERE IS SHE!"
>
> Psychopaths, the lot of them. Don't get me wrong, plenty of dirty establishment phonies on the right, but get off your fucking high horse and smell the fucking roses.
Summer of love lmaooo that has nothing to do with this, but it's actually a great example of how a movement culminated
and participated in peaceful protest brought about actual change and contributed to the US withdrawal from vietnam

You're drawing blanks here though, all I did was criticize one particular falsehood that has been damaging recently - I haven't looked into the actual happenings enough to deduce the validity of every claim, but overall based on what I've seen, you'd be damn sure that Democrats would use the event to diminish the alt-right movement... especially when there is essentially tacit proof that the president just stood by and did nothing.

I'll happily use a left wing example when it is as recent, relevant and obvious as this one.

@lilyhollow said in #5:
> ^ so that is kind of complicated. right now in the united states, you have a pretty big push to kind of throw anything that goes against established US narrative in the 'misinformation' bin. so as a small example, on twitter, for a while they had warnings on people's profiles if they were affiliated with china state media. a narrative is being pushed really hard that basically any china- or russia-linked media just purely spreads misinformation. which, however you feel about china or russia, is just not true.
>
> in other words, you have to ask yourself what is (and what isn't) being categorized as misinformation. and who is in charge of making that determination

I mean, there is nothing wrong with that example. We should know if a news agency is affiliated with Chinese state media, because such a media organization would be controlled by an authoritarian state which regularly censors topics for the Chinese public and monitors their online and daily activities through a sophisticated network. I would be highly skeptical of what they say and would strongly suspect bias or omission on a wide range of topics. Its really just common sense there.

And broadly speaking there isn't any kind of covert political conspiracy to silence dissent like what Tim Pool is saying. The kind of misinformation filters that exist on google and twitter are focused on providing clarity on areas in which there is no scientific or professional debate among all independent authorities - i.e. that the 2020 election was not stolen, that vaccines don't contain microchips, that covid-19 wasn't "faked", and that climate change isn't a fake conspiracy made up by environmentalists.