EU Search engine incoming: Ecosia is teaming up with Qwant to build a European search index
EU Search engine incoming: Ecosia is teaming up with Qwant to build a European search index
For the people who have not yet decided on a search engine. The most EU way you can go is Ecosia or Qwant as they are building their own search index.
Ecosia is my personal pick as its also aimed at planting trees and they have quite a good browser alongside it.
![[Ecosia] indgår samarbejde med Qwant om at opbygge et europæisk søgeindeks](https://blog.ecosia.org/content/images/2024/12/EcosiaxQwant_v3.png?format=webp&thumbnail=196)
You're viewing a single thread.
Now if only anyone of them would offer a paid ad-free option. I'd drop Kagi in an instant
Perhaps send their support an email about it to see what they say
Pity they aren't on mastodon :/
I use Kagi because of their strong stance against censorship. If I want to find information about controversial topics, I expect my search engine to give me the results it has crawled. I use this community test list to determine if they're censoring results. Most search engines fail this now. I imagine any EU search engine will fail this on day one.
Why do you imagine that?
The EU has made numerous moves towards restricting free speech and communication over the last decade, especially in the technology space. These include:
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (2022)
-
The DSA imposes strict regulations on large online platforms and search engines (such as Google and Meta).
-
Requires platforms to remove "illegal content" quickly, though the definition of illegal content varies by country.
-
Mandates content moderation transparency but can pressure platforms to suppress speech preemptively.
-
Enables regulators to demand access to platform algorithms and recommend content moderation changes.
-
Forces messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal to comply with EU orders, potentially compromising end-to-end encryption.
- Digital Markets Act (DMA) (2022)
-
Primarily aimed at tech monopolies, but also affects search engines and app stores.
-
Limits the ability of platforms to rank their own services higher (e.g., Google prioritizing its own results).
-
Forces companies like Apple to open up iMessage to other messaging services, potentially impacting security.
- Terrorist Content Online Regulation (2021)
-
Requires platforms to remove flagged terrorist content within one hour or face heavy fines.
-
No clear appeals process, raising concerns about automatic censorship by algorithms.
-
Governments can demand removals across all EU member states, limiting national sovereignty over content moderation.
- General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (2018)
-
Although GDPR focuses on privacy, it has been used to delist certain search results (right to be forgotten).
-
Some critics argue that GDPR can be weaponized to suppress critical information about public figures.
- Copyright Directive (2019) – Article 17 (formerly Article 13)
-
Requires platforms to filter copyrighted content before it is uploaded.
-
Forces platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook to proactively block content using automated filters, which often lead to false positives and excessive censorship.
-
Criticized for making memes and satire more difficult to share due to automated copyright enforcement.
- EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018, revised 2022)
-
Although voluntary at first, compliance with fact-checking and disinformation policies is now mandatory under the DSA.
-
Forces social media companies to demonetize or downrank "misinformation," often without clear definitions.
-
Involves close cooperation with government-backed fact-checkers, raising concerns about political bias.
- Chat Control Legislation (Proposed in 2022)
-
Requires messaging platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal) to scan private messages for child abuse content.
-
Critics argue this destroys end-to-end encryption, making all private communication vulnerable.
-
Could lead to mass surveillance under the guise of child protection.
- Political Ads Transparency Act (2023)
-
Requires all online political ads to be labeled and traceable.
-
Platforms must track funding sources, but unclear definitions of political content could impact activism and independent journalism.
-
Could be used to limit grassroots campaigns that lack formal funding structures.
- Media Freedom Act (2023)
-
Gives the EU more oversight over media ownership and state influence on journalism.
-
Some journalists worry it could be used to pressure media outlets to align with EU narratives.
These are just the laws. There have been uncounted statements by EU leaders about greater control over the kind of information they wish to allow transmitted in the EU. All of these Acts are rooted in good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. At minimum, a significant portion of the results in the test list above would be banned under existing legislation.
I can imagine the prompt to generate this:
- Make a list of EU regulations that apply to tech giants and explain what they are.
- For each of the regulations add one example that oversimplifies the potential downsides
- Ommit any advantages
A troll trolling.
Courtesy of Groq:
Here is the list of EU regulations that apply to tech giants, along with an oversimplification of potential downsides and an example for each:
- General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * Applies to the processing of personal data of EU citizens * Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to dive deep into ocean of red tape to comply with GDPR, causing unnecessary delays and increased costs" * Example: Facebook's struggles to comply with GDPR led to the temporary shutting down of its facial recognition feature.
- European Electronic Communications Code (EECC)
- Regulates online communication services, including messaging and voice calls
- Oversimplification: "Tech giants are strangled by unnecessary bureaucracy, stifling innovation and damaging their ability to compete"
- Example: The EECC's stricter regulation of online messaging apps has been criticized for hindering the development of new services.
- e-Privacy Regulation
- Regulates online communication and data sharing
- Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to build costly and complex systems to comply with e-Privacy, diverting resources away from actual innovation"
- Example: The e-Privacy Regulation's requirement for granular consent from users has been criticized for being overly burdensome and potentially weakening online security.
- Platform Regulation (Digital Services Act)
- Regulates online platforms and their liability for user-generated content
- Oversimplification: "Tech giants are held accountable for everything, good and bad, on their platforms, leading to unfair punishment for "thought crimes""
- Example: The Platform Regulation's " terrorists' materials" provision has been criticized for being too broad and potentially stifling free speech.
- Copyright Directive (Article 17)
- Regulates the use of copyrighted material on online platforms
- Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to become copyright police, deleting perfectly legitimate content and stifling creativity"
- Example: The Copyright Directive's "filtering" requirement has been criticized for being overly broad and potentially leading to the removal of legitimate content.
- Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)
- Regulates online video content, including streaming services
- Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to pander to the lowest common denominator, sacrificing artistic freedom for the sake of censorship"
- Example: The AVMSD's restrictions on content considered "harmful" has been criticized for being too vague and potentially stifling artistic expression.
- Transparency and Accountability (TAMANDO)
- Requires tech giants to be transparent about their algorithms and decision-making processes
- Oversimplification: "Tech giants are forced to reveal their trade secrets, handing over the keys to their kingdom to competitors and regulators"
- Example: The TAMANDO's requirement for algorithmic transparency has been criticized for being overly broad and potentially leading to the disclosure of sensitive information.
Please note that these oversimplifications are intentionally exaggerated to highlight potential downsides, but the actual regulations and their implementation likely have more nuances and benefits.
Ah yes, because regulations are so horrible, right?
It stands in the way of "innovation".
God forbid we protect our citizens!
@JasSmith @madjo Lemme guess... 'Cause 'Murica is the only country that knows freedom?
If things like that are censored it usually happens on the ISP level, not at the search engine. Those "censored" pages might rank lower but there could be dozens of perfectly fine explanations for that. Mostly because some of those pages know diddly squat about SEO or their pages might be socially relevant but are really bad at / for driving ad revenue.
But calling that "censorship" is IMHO not correct.
No I mean actual censorship. For example, RT and Sputnik. They have also banned PressTV and CGTN. They suspended broadcast licenses for EADaily / Eurasia Daily, Fondsk, Lenta, NewsFront, RuBaltic, SouthFront, Strategic Culture Foundation, and Krasnaya Zvezda / Tvzvezda. All of these sites would be explicitly banned from any EU based search engine.
Note that I am not giving American tech companies a free pass here. Google is one of the worst.
Also note that "censorship" doesn't exclusively refer to government censorship. That is an American-centric perspective using the Constitution as the lens. Censorship is often conducted by individuals and organisations. In this case I am referring to the EU.
Pretty much all of those """news""" sources have been witnessed to spread complete fabrications and fake news, and were used to undermine democracy on this continent, much like how Fox News and the likes are actively undermining democracy across the pond by spreading lies as "opinion pieces".