Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Urging Safari Users To Use Bing
New submitter SquarePixel writes "Microsoft is urging Safari users to switch to Bing after Google was fined $22.5 million for violating Safari privacy settings. 'Microsoft is keen to make sure that no-one forgets this, let alone Safari users, and the page summarizes the events that took place.' It tells users how Google promised not to track Safari users, but tracked them without their permission and used this data to serve them advertisement. Lastly, it tells how Google was fined $22.5 million for this and suggests users to try the more privacy oriented Bing search engine."
Yeah, they haven't gotten caught yet
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Bing, that integrates with Facebook, who are the champions of privacy, of course.
So either way, you're still getting your results from Google.
Interesting i would have thought that with the ! symbol meaning "NOT" the rest of th universe that it would display shopping results for every but amazon.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Why would you need an app to use a web search engine?
(I mean, I know they exist and people use them... but why??)
why yes, a bing based search aka duck duck go is based on privacy?
do tell! /facepalm
simple... bad guys: everyone else ;)
good guys: me
When China told Google to censor or get out, they got out - evacuating to Taiwan.
Eric Schmidt, the Chairman and CEO at the time was for pursuing the business opportunity through minimizing the damage. Larry Page was ambivalent. That day Sergey Brin became Google's moral compass and said something like: "Not just no, but Fuck no. My dad was a Russian dissident and came to America to avoid being sent to a Gulag for speaking his mind. If you do this not only will I take my share and leave, but I'll use it to do my best to defeat the monster you've become."
There was a big fight and Eric Schmidt gave up the CEO spot and his role as the world's best-paid babysitter. Larry Page took it (Sergey didn't want it). And Google moved out of China, abandoning the world's biggest growth market until it's ready to accept at least the human right of free speech. But the question about where Google stood on free speech was forever closed. That issue at least is resolved.
Bing and Yahoo crowed their triumph that day, that they had bested their adversary on at least one field - and an important one. For all of me this was one battle they needed to lose.
Recently there was press about some unnamed person from the White House asking YouTube to check a controversial video to see if it violated their terms of service. The reply: "No, it doesn't - thanks for asking." The implied unofficial implication was that it would be convenient if the video violated the terms. Certainly this didn't come from the President directly as he taught Constitutional Law, so it was a minor official inquiry that by some other company would have been taken as an opportunity to seek some advantage. But Google would have none of that. They don't do that. If pressed (they weren't pressed) the answer would certainly have been "not just no, but Fuck No! We don't do that." America doesn't have anything like the ability to enforce cooperation that China does, and if it happened to gain that power Google would just leave the US too now because organizationally the "free speech" question is completely and forever settled.
For all that some would paint Google as evil, maybe Google is in some aspect preserving our moral compass for when we regain our sanity and come to understand again what's really important. Until then I admire their determination to retain their moral compass and do the right thing.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Who gives a shit if that content is in your search results if it's relevant? I don't care where their data comes from, as long as it's related to what I'm looking for.
If I search for "taco recipe" and one of my friends has recently posted one to G+, shouldn't I want to see that?
That linked-to blog is rather full of shit.
I avoid using Google for searching 99% of the time, block AdSense, Google Analytics, and usually Google APIs, but this is over the top:
Just bullshit. They are, if anything overly eager to have content pulled based upon loose matches by copyright bots.
Some of that copyrighted content is posted by the rights holders as advertising too.
Then there's this steaming turd:
Criminally insane? Greedy maybe, but the only one criminally insane is the anonymous blogger that posted this crap.
Of course it isn't.
Oh really? I don't trust them, but they've been remarkably non-evil considering the amount of power they wield.
Agreed.
They push for an open internet with open standards where ever they can; they could push closed standards but don't -- that's relatively noble, for a corporate entity.
Same with all ad-based content.
I don't and help others block their trackers and use other search engines.
They are the lesser of 5 evils (Apple, MS, Oracle, FaceBook, Google). I fear that someday they could become enormously evil, but for now the blogger is a hyperventilating, hyperbolic douche.
First, nowhere on that page does Microsoft pledge not to track you. Second, Microsoft has a vested interest in shooting everyone who honors DNT in the head so that they can't get any more revenue by being better at analytics than Microsoft. Third, Microsoft sites fail to honor DNT, even if you are dumb and use IE9. Fourth, the DNT standard was written such that DNT was opt-in, not opt-out, and Microsoft is failing to implement the standard with IE9.
So the business model is:
(1) Ruin every honest web sites analytics by DNT-by-default in IE9
(2) Ignore the DNT sent by IE9 and other browsers when doing their own analytics
(3) Become the sole source of qualified targeted advertising as a result
(4) Profit!
There isn't even a "???" step in there.