DuckDuckGo for Mac
spreadprivacy.comI'm using DuckDuckGo almost exclusively[1] for years now and I'm pretty happy with it.
I don't see much benefit in their browser though. I think their "Privacy Grade", which is shown very prominently in the browser UI, is more harm than help. It is much too strict and rating everything down is counter to their intention. Is a B site still OK? What about a C, or. B+? If nothing is A, this is just confusing to the user.
Is there any website, except duckduckgo.com itself, that has an A rating? Why has a perfectly legit site like Wikipedia only a B rating?
Ironically even the service they use to rate terms of service (https://tosdr.org/) only has a rating of B+, because of "Unknown Privacy Practices" in their very own terms of service.
[1] The only exception being local searches.
DuckDuckGo for Mac (the subject of this post) does not use privacy grades of any kind. We will be moving away for them on all platforms soon, and they were never used for search rankings, just for transparency. On using our app more generally, please see my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31002089
As to what is going on with privacy grades more generally, we never felt comfortable rating a site an A if we couldn't assess their privacy policy, since they could be doing very nefarious things (e.g., selling your data). We tried to work with groups to get more assessments on more sites, but never found a scalable way to do this. We even licensed various ML analysis algorithms for privacy policies, but always found significant issues with them. In the end, I think this stems from the fact that privacy policies themselves are too vague.
I agree that privacy grades are misleading, they could be replaced by the number of trackers blocked.
Exactly. I run a static site over SSL with zero trackers, analytics, etc. but I get a B+ from DDG for "unknown privacy practices."
Well just make your privacy practices known then! /s
Seems simple!
> Why has a perfectly legit site like Wikipedia only a B rating?
Their selling points seem to be:
- DuckDuckGo for Mac gives you privacy by default
- DuckDuckGo for Mac is really fast!
- DuckDuckGo for Mac is built for security.
.. isn't that just (almost/good enough) Safari these days? Plus with Safari you typically get better battery life. And Apple's monetisation model makes me feel like they'll treat my privacy even better than a search engine. The only reason why sometimes I miss/use browsers like Brave is because of the Chrome Extensions.
Privacy by default cannot be overstated. To really escape privacy harms, e.g., creepy ads and following you around and similar content targeting (filter bubbles), you need multi-pronged protection that actually blocks trackers from loading vs. just restricting them after you load. We have a detailed post that explains this here: https://spreadprivacy.com/browser-privacy-protection/. "The issue is that once such trackers are loaded in your browser, they have a ton of ways to track you beyond just third-party cookies (e.g., by another form of cookies called first-party cookies, by your IP address, and much, much more). And many of these mechanisms cannot be turned off because the browser needs them to properly function."
In addition to privacy though, I'd highlight a couple other things.
- People prefer different UX and our UX is certainly different. It has been built from the ground-up to be clean -- less clutter, less icons, etc.
- We're adding features we think make the browsing experience better. This includes our Fire Button (one-click data clearing for tabs, windows, or everything), our automatic cookie consent pop-up management, auto-blocking of Facebook embedded content, etc. We're working on more of these types of features, and taken together, they not only protect your privacy but should make everyday browsing less annoying.
The main reason I don't use Safari on the Mac is that all extensions (including ad-blockers) require an AppleID (because they have to come from the Apple App store), and I don't want to be forced to tie my laptop to any online account.
If the DDG browser has as built-in good-enough ad-browser, I'll probably try it. Though I doubt it has any practical advantages over Firefox/Edge + uBlock Origin, which I'm using now.
This is how I feel. Safari can still do a lot and I hope they continue to make it more private (no reason to believe they won't).
But on Mac I stick with Safari not only because of the reasons you stated, but also because of iCloud (yes I know this breaks privacy but I trust Apple... mostly).
I use Brave though on my Windows PC but I may switch too DDG, or at least give it a shot.
> but I trust Apple... mostly
This for me is a big part of privacy. It's not about making sure nobody has my data, that's a near-impossible task and never ending. But if I can consolidate and limit who has my data to entities I trust slightly more than others, it's a win.
Example, using a credit card comes with the inherent idea that you can be tracked. Your bank obviously tracks you and knows everything about you, Visa sees it all as using their network, and the third and most important, every merchant/vendor you visit can now track your purchase patterns and tie that with other information about you. Using Apple Pay, I'm giving Apple my purchase history at the benefit of having a randomized number for each transaction that the hundreds/thousands of vendors I shop at can't track me by.
What is interesting is for me, I kinda take the opposite approach.
Kinda ... A lot of my information has been consolidated to Apple. I am not naive enough to trust them completely. But I feel like I have made a conscious choice of balancing privacy concerns with Apple (and their business practices for the use of that data) and the convenience of features.
But in my opinion one of my biggest issue I have with companies like Facebook and Google is that consolidation. I would rather the companies only know bits (realistically none but considering both companies allow others to consent on my behalf... there isn't much I can do) instead of an entire pictures.
Now I know that many of these companies sell data in the background. But I guess I have some weird level of... comfort knowing that they have to do extra work to piece the data about me together.
I could see your point there as well. If talking about Facebook and Google, I absolutely am on the same side of not giving them an inch more. I see them as data-first companies, whereas I see Apple more product-first. Whether I'm correct in that is debatable.
Agree completely, what is the worst that Apple is going to do with that data? Find out how to sell me more of their services and products?
Not sure they could sell me much more considering I already do Apple One premier (or whatever the highest tier is), Apple TV's, HomePods, AirPods, etc etc.
Maybe that is a bit of the wrong mentality, but it's a balance for me.
Ad blocking support in Safari isn't great. A lot of the best extensions are a paid subscription, and the free ones seem to be noticeably worse the uBlock Origin.
Wipr is a one time fee of just a couple dollars, and it receives pretty consistent updates.
I second a vote for Wipr.
A few weeks ago something got temporarily screwed up in Safari and Wipr got disabled and I was shocked at how many ads I was suddenly seeing. I didn't realize quite how much stuff Wipr was blocking until then.
I just use the Privacy Extension from DuckDuckGo. It’s not an ad-blocker, but blocking trackers just happen to block most ads.
It's called "DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials" for those will look it up in the AppStore.
Where do the claims about battery life come from ? I couldn't find any independent review (yet) and I don't see any mention of it on their website.
Not the OP making the claim, but I also looked for recent data and couldn't find any (especially for M1 macs because I just switched to one).
So I just compared them myself for my typical work and media playback (Youtube & Twitch), just anecdotal and totally unscientific though, ranked by MacOs's Energy Impact with the best being 100%.
All with the same extensions (if available, for Safari I used adguard instead of ublock origin).
Safari Technlogy Preview: 100%
Brave Beta: 110%
Orion: 300%
Firefox: 1200% :(
While Safari also used slightly less memory, Brave is the best compromise for me for now. (e2ee sync, chrome extensions and with their crypto shenanigans disabled.)
But again, not scientific at all and of course might differ for people depending on the extensions they use and their browsing behavior.
The number for Orion looks wrong (Orion dev here). It should be same or better than Safari as both are using WebKit with Orion being more lightweight. Would be happy to look into this if you can post methodology used at https://orionfeedback.org
I'd expect battery life to be similar (or maybe even better):
> By using your computer’s built-in website rendering engine (the same one Safari uses), and by blocking trackers before they load (unlike all the major browsers), you’ll get really fast browsing.
Sorry, but if it doesn’t have ublock origin, it’s not privacy friendly enough.
Please make sure that this extension works, if any (and including advanced functionality such as disabling link auditing, which is no longer an option in safari).
Yes, we are actively evaluating possibilities for add-on support. However, you do not need ublock origin here for privacy protection. Our tracker blocker is powered by our best-in-class Tracker Radar data set (https://github.com/duckduckgo/tracker-radar) which is based on monthly crawls of the web looking for third-party trackers and uncovering the latest tracking techniques. Many academics and companies (including Apple) are now relying on this same data set for research and tracking protection. Similarly our Smarter Encryption (HTTPS upgrading -- https://github.com/duckduckgo/smarter-encryption) is also based on regular web crawls and is many times more comprehensive then anything else out there.
> However, you do not need ublock origin here for privacy protection.
I'm happy to see DuckDuckGo entering this space and happy to see them building off of WebKit. And I think that DuckDuckGo is doing some fairly good stuff for privacy right now, and I hope they continue to move in that direction.
Nevertheless, this is a concerning comment. Ublock Origin isn't the only way to block ads of course, and it's not impossible for something else to do better. But there is a reason it's widely considered to be arguably the best adblocking browser extensions right now, and it's not just hype or advertising.
----
> Our tracker blocker is powered by our best-in-class Tracker Radar data set
The reason Ublock Origin is currently arguably the best-in-class adblocker for privacy protection is not because it does web crawling or because it uses a special data set, it's because of its capabilities.
DuckDuckGo using Tracker Radar data really has nothing to do with this conversation. It's possible DuckDuckGo's protections are sufficient on their own, but to make that determination you'd need to talk about the actual anti-circumvention features that it has, not just where it gets its data from.
Bringing up Apple is particularly unfortunate, because Safari has easily the worst adblocking performance out of any major browser, so if they are using the Tracker Radar set to inform that, it's apparently not enough on its own to give them competitive adblocking performance.
----
> Similarly our Smarter Encryption (HTTPS upgrading -- https://github.com/duckduckgo/smarter-encryption) is also based on regular web crawls and is many times more comprehensive then anything else out there.
This really shouldn't be in the same conversation, adblocking and connection upgrades are two separate factors of privacy. Both are important, but "we upgrade HTTPS" is kind of orthogonal to extension support.
However, since we're talking about HTTPS upgrading, bringing up that DuckDuckGo maintains a large list of sites to upgrade for doesn't really mean that much given that HTTPS upgrade policies (ought to) just all be based on the same lists. It's the same issue as above, I'm not worried about what data you use, that should be something that a lot of different extensions pull from. I'm worried about the capabilities, I'm worried about how effectively the browser can actually leverage that data set.
Thanks! Tracker-radar seems interesting.
My personal privacy standard is still much stricter than Apple's, and therefore will not be met without additional customization: I delete cookies on browser shutdown, block all third-party JS by default and remove some elements through ublock origin blacklists.
I agree that this is overkill for a consumer product, and I may recommend DDG browser to people on platforms where Firefox is not available with extensions (=iOS).
In any case, thanks for your work and transparency!
Extension support will be crucial for people to jump over, including me from Firefox.
I use Bitwarden for password management and I'm not really interested in porting that over to Duck.
Safari-like performance with extension support is essentially my endgame browser on Mac. Although it makes me uneasy that the entire browser is built on Apple's api's, it's seems like they will be at their mercy for whatever changes are made in the future.
That's Orion you're describing - https://browser.kagi.com/ - and it's from the people behind Kagi, a truly amazing search engine. (I don't work there or know anything beyond being a user.)
I'm still defaulting to Brave until my extension set works seamlessly, though my Developer Console-fu might also deter a complete switch.
This is awesome news for those who prefer not to use Chromium browsers. Between Safari, Orion [1], and DDG, macOS starts to have a competitive landscape for native browsing. Will definitely try once they will implement password syncing.
> Download the DuckDuckGo mobile app (or update to the latest version)
I must say, this is a great method of marketing. I've never been super interested in trying the DDG mobile app, but the MacOS option caught my eye. I've now downloaded the app simply to sign up for the desktop option.
An aside about the mobile app:
Pros-
It integrates well with google things that Firefox seemingly doesn't, eg. Autofill of payment details, and still has some adblocking unlike chrome. The fire button.
Cons-
It has problems downloading most things, and the renderer blanks out when scrolling sometimes, and the the blocking isn't as comprehensive as ublock/privacy badger/decentraleyes.
Worth having as a second install I think
An update that fixed most download issues went out recently -- are you still seeing any issues there?
On blocking, it is as comprehensive when it comes to trackers, if not more so -- see comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31002232. However, from the post: "Our built-in tracker blocker isn’t a general “ad blocker”, but it does have the effect of blocking most creepy ads. Let me explain. Using our best-in-class tracker data set we block invasive trackers, which then typically blocks the invasive ads themselves. In other words, if you use an ad blocker to avoid creepy ads and tracking, you should like DuckDuckGo for Mac."
> 1. Download the DuckDuckGo mobile app (or update to the latest version)
> 2. Open Settings > DuckDuckGo for Desktop (in the Privacy section).
This doesn’t seem to exist? Just installed on iOS.
It's in version 7.66.2.1 (or later). We've pushed it live so it should get to you soon (if not already) if you go into the App Store.
Weirdly I had to update twice to see this option.
I’ve repeatedly killed App Store and even rebooted my phone and still don’t see the update. Guess I’ll try tomorrow!
Is anyone still using DDG after they stated that they will be editing results re the Ukraine war? This was a clear statement that they not letting the algorithm do the talking - they are taking a parental role and deciding what we can and cannot see.
I've switched to presearch - https://engine.presearch.org/ - which I have to say I'm enjoying.
Search algorithms are preferential and biased by design. They are always tuned for a certain result, and usually that's with a bias towards accurate information. Obviously they've failed at this in the past, present, and future, but it should hardly be surprising that literal propaganda produced by a highly militarized government run by a tyrant is being down ranked.
Undoubtedly there is bias in the design of any software. But, you'd hope that software designers would try to keep their own biases out of it!
This is not what DDG are doing though. They are explicitly inserting their bias - no doubt this is in good cause - but I don't want any overt bias at all! I want to see the data as is. As a grown-up, I'll mediate my own searches - thanks! I don't need a parental filter!
That they were even able to implement some sort explicit bias functionality so quickly is also a concern to me. They must have had a means to manually add certain keywords etc to some sort of banned or weighted listing.
So there is some reason to think their censorship was by design.... why? Perhaps this is on request of a three letter agency, via some secret court judgement? Are there other explicit biases that they are not telling us about? How can we know?
We can't know, but do know that they are not operating in good faith - that they are editing results.
> This is not what DDG are doing though. They are explicitly inserting their bias
Well... yeah. How did you think instant answers worked in DuckDuckGo? They were coming from a list of curated sites.
A search engine is not accidentally biased, it is biased by design. The entire point is that DDG has a bias towards a set of criteria it uses to decide what does and doesn't count as a relevant search result. The whole point of a search engine is to be biased.
This is like arguing that Linux upstream repositories are biased because they curate which software goes into the Arch package list and decide for users what is and isn't malware. Yeah, of course they do that, that is literally their job -- literally the entire reason why those repositories exist is to filter out bad software. The point of curation/filtering/searching is to have someone else eliminate a bunch of irrelevant information and to rank information based on a set of rules about what is and isn't relevant/useful.
Likewise, the job of DDG is to filter results based on their opinions about what results are good and bad. You can disagree with their criteria or argue that they're filtering too aggressively, but the idea that they're not operating in good faith -- it's absurd, this is why they exist. We want a search engine that brings up accurate/useful information when we search for a topic.
It is astonishing to me that so many people on HN don't understand this, that they apparently never sat down and actually thought about what the phrase "search engine rankings" actually imply about what the search engine is doing behind the scenes.
----
> That they were even able to implement some sort explicit bias functionality so quickly is also a concern to me.
Kind of a sidenote, but this is also a good example of how bad people's instincts are about how algorithms work. People assume that an algorithm is neutral and that manually intervening is bias -- but algorithms are just the result of individual decisions about what criteria to prioritize and how to weight that criteria. A result isn't more or less biased just because it was directly created rather than indirectly created.
It's troubling that so many people on HN of all places were apparently convinced that DDG was completely neutral on political content just because they assumed that there wasn't any kind of manual curation or adjustment going on -- and the manual part is what made them feel good about it. They assumed DDG was unbiased just because the biases were automated and a computer did them.
If DDG was able to tweak their algorithms to get rid of misinformation, that apparently wouldn't have counted as curation? That this attitude is so prevalent even on a technical site makes me feel pessimistic about the future of AI/algorithms in our everyday life, because it shows that people have a fundamental misunderstanding about what algorithms are.
> powered by blockchain technology.
Fascinating
As best I can tell, their "decentralized" moniker is composed of "we reward you in our magic coin for searches" (and optionally for running a local node), and "the search is executed on community nodes": https://presearch.io/vision.pdf#page=33
But my mental model of running a search engine was that it is a data/bandwidth intensive operation, not CPU intensive, so I wonder how they get the index down to those workers?
I do agree that paying coin to federate out the crawling is neat, but I hope they have some kind of consensus applied to those results, too, lest one runs the risk of indexing search results mangled by any MITM (intentional or otherwise) applied to the jurisdiction of the crawling node
I was pretty disappointed at them when they said that. I'm using them as my second option after that. I migrated to brave search as my main one (It has shebang support too).
> by blocking trackers before they load (unlike all the major browsers[0])
I certainly like that DDG is pushing for privacy oriented systems and services, but when I read things like the above, and the accompanied page, I become quite sceptical of them. They don't mention Firefox with uBlock Origin, nor do they mention Firefox's Enhanced Tracker Protection (IIRC you get asked if you want to enable on first start up).
I'm interested in trying this. There are a few things about it that appeal to me more than the other options. Plus, I like the idea of another browser option.
However, I find it weird that in order to get on the waitlist, I have to install the Duck mobile app. That seems like an unnecessary complication. And it also excludes people who don't have an iPhone. (I'm not sure if there's a Duck browser for Android.)
If it somehow incorporates Apple Pay, I will switch. That is the killer feature that keeps me on Safari.
You can also join the waitlist from our Android app. We needed this step to limit people in the beta as we make improvements before general release, and already made an in-app waitlist for our Email Protection and App Tracking Protection betas.
As for Apple Pay, we would love to add Apple Pay to both DuckDuckGo for Mac and iOS, but currently Apple does not expose the APIs to enable us to do so.
Why reinvent the wheel and force yourself to go through a new browser when you have Vivaldi? Extension support is being planned (not sure when it will release). Windows is "coming soon". Linux- I don't think they will support it.
Vivaldi fits the use cases completely - you can keep it as simple or complex as you want. I don't want a browser which is "fast". I want one which works and supports specific general and niche use cases rolled into one.
Vivaldi is still Chromium based. This is WebKit based (or more accurately, the OS provided engine). We need more non-Chromium based browsers anyway.
I'm speculating here, but it sounds like the Windows version will also be the OS provided engine, which would be Edge, thus we're back to Chromium. Which is a shame considering the stink they make about it in this article.
With their browser based on Safari and their search engine using Google’s index, DDG just feels like a rebranding exercise. It would be nice to get some real competition.
Our search engine does not use Google results at all.
On the app (the subject of this post), we are actually not forking any browser. From the bottom section on how it is built:
"DuckDuckGo for Mac does not fork Chromium (or anything else). Instead, we use the rendering engine that comes with macOS...We are building everything else from scratch. So beyond rendering, all the code is ours – written by DuckDuckGo engineers with privacy, security, and simplicity front of mind. This means we don’t have the cruft and clutter that has accumulated in browsers over the years, both in code and design, giving you a modern look and feel and a faster speed."
Their search results are a reskin of Bing.
If this is built well over time and catches on, it could decrease Firefox’s share on the Mac even further. Safari typically has the best (lowest) energy usage pattern on Macs. DuckDuckGo browser built on top of the same should be similar. The promise of extensions is also quite tempting.
I love that users who value privacy have even more choices and flexibility.
I'm using DDG exclusively, for a few months now. Trying to get away from Google. I still find myself going back now and then though because the DDG results can be so bad compared to Google. I plan on continuing to use it primarily, it's just super annoying to struggle to find something and then go search Google and find it instantly.
I think this will sit very well with their new Email Protection feature (Firefox Relay, Apple HideMyEmail). Looks like they’ve plans for that feature or other future add-on features as well. What’s next - VPN? Full fledged mail hosting (Proton, Fast, Mailbox) and hook it up with Email Protection (because without that it doesn’t make much sense)?
There have been a couple DuckDuckGo initiatives recently where they force you to download their mobile app in order to get access to a product or feature on the desktop. I don't see how this is necessary, and it seems a little bit like a "growth hack", which is not the tone I want to associate with DuckDuckGo.
Will the browser, like the search engine, decide which political perspectives I should be exposed to?
A search engine should rank results based on quality. Misinformation should be ranked poorly. Just because some misinformation has a political bent doesn't mean it should be exempted.
Surely only the purveyors of political misinformation could disagree with this.
> Surely only the purveyors of political misinformation could disagree with this.
Ah, the preemptive "if you disagree with me you're spreading propaganda" tactic. Bold.
The funny part is how much your comment reveals about your own bias. Most other people can see it, but you yourself cannot. The exact thing you're accusing others of.
I don’t need other people to decide for me what’s true.
In fact I find the growing support for that frightening, given that the self-appointed arbiters of truth in corporate and social media have repeatedly, objectively been shown to be wrong, and from my personal perspective pushing a social and political agenda that is not my own.
I’m a big boy, I’ll decide for myself what counts as “misinformation” thanks very much.
They aren't telling you what's true. They're just ranking search results.
And a search engine has to rank search results -- not everything can be at the top. The question isn't whether DDG should rank search results, but what criteria they should use.
I personally think the usefulness and credibility of the information are pretty good criteria, and do not think any exceptions should be made for political subjects.
So what difference with Google then?
In this way they could rank marketing stuff in a first page and usefull at 10+, just because "sponsorship/current agenda".
can you elaborate?
must be a reference to this https://www.news18.com/news/tech/many-duckduckgo-users-feel-...
ah I see, so the preference is to allow propaganda to proliferate?
Don't want to speak for OP beyond that, but you can read the people critical of / in favor of the decision and try and understand their POV.
Have potential, as long as its not chromium based. I hope this browser will become successful
DDG has been recently under attack due to tampering of search results [1]. Hope they don’t involve politics in their browser!
[1] https://www.vox.com/recode/22981115/duckduckgo-free-speech-p...
I'm doing as little searching for news about Ukraine as I possibly can, so I have no issue here. It's a tragedy, an important issue, and I get enough news about it without searching for it.
Removing misinformation from Russia is a strange one to attack them for... considering the Russian invasion is about as non partisan of an issue (in the US at least) as I have seen in a long time.
Regardless, search engines have to rank content somehow. We need to stop throwing around "politics" when something doesn't fit your particular narrative.
I agree with OP. DuckDuckGo should remain neutral and not censor search results. That was one of their main draws that set them apart from Google.
If you agree with the OP maybe read the article that they posted?
This was never a thing that DDG claimed they were for. DDG is about privacy!
If we were talking about nearly any other issue, I might agree with you. But in this particular case, this is not a political issue! This is an invasion. End of story. Any "information" claiming otherwise is propaganda and does not deserve to be spread as truth.
>This was never a thing that DDG claimed they were for. DDG is about privacy!
DDG absolutely claims to give more neutral results.
https://searchengineland.com/duckduckgos-new-video-targets-g...
Nothing about that video or article claims that.
That is about Google tailoring the results for you.
DDG is doing this across the board. So everyone gets the same results as the video states.
Okay, fair enough.
But I don't think the average user would consider this "unbiased" and "not filtered" as DDG has claimed their results are.
https://reclaimthenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Screens...
The average user doesn't understand search engines then. It's expected that any search engine will prioritize certain results over others, because that's the entire point of a search engine, it filters and ranks sites.
"Unbiased" is doing a lot of work here. I think DDG's messaging about that could have been better, and they could have better indicated what was going on when they used that language -- but to be clear, there has never in the entire history of DDG as a browser been a period where they didn't rank political content and where certain political sites weren't given higher search rankings over other sites.
There is no betrayal here because this is just how search engines work. There couldn't have been a period where DDG wasn't ranking political sites because the only way for a search engine to avoid ranking political content is to not return political results in the first place (never mind the conversation of what does and doesn't count as "political").
At most what we see here is that DDG was a little too eager to lean into people's misunderstanding about what they meant by the word "neutral", and too slow to correct people who took something away from that phrasing that wasn't true.
I completely fail to understand how we are having this discussion on hacker news of all places.
If you have ever written a line of code you should understand that things have order. If search engines didn't try to organize results the result you are looking for could be on the first page or the 100th.
While I think it's fair to say that most people don't understand that google changes results based on the person. I have to imagine most people at least understand a basic concept that search results are organized in some way. Either by humans or machines (or likely both). That organization is complicated and has a number of factors in play and if done correctly should bubble up what is true.
What is misinformation and who gets to decide? At one point we were told the covid vaccines worked and you wouldn't need to worry about getting covid. If you disagreed it was "disinformation". We now know that that is not true. I'd prefer to use my own brain to decide for myself.
some in the US seem to disagree with you on that one... disinformation reigns far and wide.
Or yours? And, who is 'we'? And why is "politics" in quotes?
Claiming "politics" as a reason a company should not take a stance on something has turned into a blanket statement used largely for attacks on Human Rights.
We are seeing it here with DDG, Disney, and many others in the last several years.
I used to tell everyone to use duckduckgo.
But then they decided to determine for me what constitutes misinformation. I no longer trust duckduckgo.
I'm in the same boat. Very disappointed they felt the need to filter specific search results based on their political ideology.