Slashdot Mirror


Search Engine DuckDuckGo Removes 'Pirate' Site Bangs To Avoid Liability (torrentfreak.com)

DuckDuckGo, a privacy-focused search engine, offers a variety of useful features such as instant answers and bangs. The latter are particularly useful for people who want to use DuckDuckGo to search directly on other sites. Typing '!yt keyword', for instance, will do a direct search on YouTube, while '!w keyword' goes to Wikipedia. This library of bangs has been around for a long time and has grown to more than 10,000 over the years.

From a report: However, a few days ago, roughly 2,000 of these were removed. Interestingly, this included many bangs that link to torrent sites, such as The Pirate Bay, 1337x and RARBG. Similarly, bangs for OpenSubtitles, Sci-Hub and LibGen are gone too. Initially, it was unclear what had happened, but after people started asking questions on Reddit, DuckDuckGo staff explained that this was part of a larger cleanup operation. DuckDuckGo went through its bangs library and removed all non-working versions, as well as verbose ones that were not actively used. In addition, many pirate site bangs were deleted as these are no longer"permitted."

"Bangs had been neglected for some time, and there were tons of broken ones. As part of the bang clean-up, we also removed some that were pointing to primarily illegal content," DuckDuckGo staffer Tagawa explains. The search engine still indexes the sites in question but it feels that offering curated search shortcuts for these sites in their service might cause problems. "It may not seem like so at first blush, but it is very different legally if it is a bang vs. in the search results because the bangs are added to the product by us explicitly, and can be interpreted legally as an editorial decision that is actively facilitating that site and its content," the staff wrote.

56 comments

  1. Won't be long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before other things go as well in the name of liability.

    1. Re:Won't be long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever created that site is a quack.

    2. Re: Won't be long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First thing we do is kill all the lawyers.

    3. Re:Won't be long by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Typing '!yt keyword', for instance, will do a direct search on YouTube

      And if you type '!! keyword' it searches Pornhub.

    4. Re: Won't be long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine someone actually sitting home in their wife beater. Fat. Ugly. Covered in Cheeto dust.

      They rage and their eyes bulge. Their face remains static, light gray.

      "Orange....man.......bad" he says to himself..."orange man.......bad"

      Repeating his sad mantra to himself, his only connection to other "humans," consumed by the feeling that he is utterly alone.

      A single tear rolls down his cheek

    5. Re:Won't be long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DuckDuckGo has sold out.

      Use Startpage.com instead.

  2. Neutral Search Engines by Dins · · Score: 0

    DDG has positioned itself as a privacy-oriented search engine. I have used them almost exclusively for years. But search engines should be neutral. If it exists on the net, they should find it (except for criminally illegal content like child pr0n). But this action seems counter to that, and feels counter to their core beliefs. Sure, they market themselves as a SE that doesn't track you, but the demographic that uses them isn't going to be pleased by this.

    1. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But this action seems counter to that

      How? Isn't anyone on the !Pirate getting an unfair benefit?

    2. Re:Neutral Search Engines by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it exists on the net, they should find it (except for criminally illegal content like child pr0n).

      So which is it then? Either they censor, or they don't.

      To get around this problem, Yacy could use a hell of a lot more users...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Neutral Search Engines by vux984 · · Score: 1

      " But this action seems counter to that, and feels counter to their core beliefs. Sure, they market themselves as a SE that doesn't track you, but the demographic that uses them isn't going to be pleased by this."

      Meh. not really.

      bangs are basically a type of hosted 'form bookmark'; where you can select an online form, complete it, and submit it all from the address bar.

      !g xyz

      is basically, go to the page booked mark named !g, put xyz in the search field, and then submit the form.

      I don't think anyone *really* expects ddg to provide and maintain such booksmarks to pirate sites.

    4. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it exists on the net, they should find it (except for criminally illegal content like child pr0n).

      Playing the devil's advocate here - if they're truly neutral they should find that too. But they should call the authorities, whose job it is to shut those places down. Not try to pretend to be the authority and take it on themselves. That's how you start sliding down the slippery slope of non neutrality.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You can get the same results without the "bang" shortcut feature.

    6. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The neutrality here is legality. If pirate sites show up in the search results, that's out of their control. If they create shortcuts for pirate sites, they are deliberately taking an action to encourage criminal activity.

    7. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only semi-practical solution to online censorship is "Overrated"... Fascinating... Don't wanna hear about it, eh?

    8. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we only want to search the pirate sites for education and research!

    9. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DDG is deliberately choosing to locate itself within US jurisdiction despite internet being global phenomenon.
      Awfully strange choice for group which purports to be "privacy-focused". Almost like some unspoken political bias is at play.
      US citizens are most vulnerable to US government actions, and should prioritize non-US services out of reach of US,
      and non-US citizens should not have reason to allow their dealings to intersect US jurisdiction in the first place,
      which allows indirect influence like this, even when they on user end are 100% out of US jurisdiction.
      Yet "Silicon Valley" tech world is 110% US centric, despite itself routinely using 3rd country jurisdictions for taxes.
      Nothing to discuss here, move along...

    10. Re:Neutral Search Engines by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Being a snitch for the state is worse. The list of forbidden words can only grow.

      The fact is, you can't depend on any single company subject to any jurisdiction. As long as information is treated as contraband, we need to compensate.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      They aren't delisting anything in the regular search results. They're only removing some listings from the group they promote, because these links seem to have their implicit approval.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    12. Re: Neutral Search Engines by houghi · · Score: 1

      To be the devils, devils advocate. They should NOT report it, as it is not up to them to deciide if something is illegal or not. For that you have a legal system.
      The moment they decide if something is criminal or not.
      Be it a torrent link, childporn, terrorism or people using Emacs instead of vi.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    13. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " (except for criminally illegal content like child pr0n)"

      hahaha how about you stop pretending and say how it is:
      just need to get together enough money to buy 'definition of criminal'.

    14. Re:Neutral Search Engines by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I'd actually never hear of Yacy before now.

    15. Re:Neutral Search Engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ability still exists

      dogs site:example.com Pages about dogs from example.com

      https://duck.co/help/results/syntax

      it just isn't a site "endorsed" by DDG in this case.

  3. site: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As long as the site: prefix still works who cares.

    1. Re: site: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the regular searches working alright?

  4. NPC Ivan, work on it moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ivan, if you're going to attempt a US civics joke, it'd behoove (Or behoof, you cloven-footed swine..) you to get the damn terminology right. It's LAME duck, not SITTING DUCK. A sitting duck President = Trump @ Mueller's feet.

    1. Re: NPC Ivan, work on it moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, no civics lesson from you. obama's lame duck session ended years ago, so no, he is not a lame duck, just a lying fuck.....

      obama looks TelePrompTer left, "you can keep your health care" jabber jabber, he looks TelePrompTer right, "you can keep your doctor" lies incoherently some more. He never looks straight ahead, because there is no teleprompter there.

      President Trump, Obama's true legacy. Get used to it, it's your fault.

    2. Re: NPC Ivan, work on it moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thereâ(TM)s nothing in the ACA that prevents you from buying a policy that your chosen doctor accepts for payment. And thereâ(TM)s nothing that requires an insurance provider to keep or continue anyoneâ(TM)s policy.

  5. And the full list is published. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Suddenly, ~1900 of the least known piracy sites have a huge uptick in visitors. No such thing as bad publicity.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  6. Subject Line Orthodoxy is Nazism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...In case anybody was still unsure about US tech, whose political loyalty or blinders is assured (tax liabilities aside, thank you very much).

  7. Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by DatbeDank · · Score: 0

    I've never heard it used to describe search results.

    Generally to me it means that tuff of hair immediately in the front of your face (fringe for you UKers) and of course the act of repeatedly entering and exiting a certain place a subset of Slashdot and 4chan can only imagine.

    1. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by tepples · · Score: 3

      Bang is another name for the exclamation point. DuckDuckGo has a few thousand shortcuts for site:example.com domains. Each of these shortcuts begins with the exclamation point.

    2. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bang is an alternate name for the exclamation mark, depending on how it is used. Similar to how # could be a "pound sign" a "number sign" or "hashtag". Typically a bang is used in a word. For instance, to represent a tongue cluck sound used in some languages. On DDG, it's used to precede a short description that tells how to search. !g (pronounced "bang g") searches google, !w searches wikipedia, etc.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Bang is another name for the exclamation point.

      It'll always be a pling to me.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by Snotnose · · Score: 2

      And * is called a Nathan Hale, as in "I regret I have 1 ass to risk"....

      I shave my neck daily, why do you ask?

    5. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of computer nerd doesn't know of the bang? Are you saying you have never heard of a bang path?

      Ah, Slashdot -- news for dumb nerds.

    6. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Neo-nerds, alt-nerds, nerd-inlaws, nerdcomers, noob-nerds, etc.

    7. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A hash by itself is not a hashtag. When there is a hash followed by a word (tag) then it becomes one.

    8. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by dissy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      https://blog.codinghorror.com/ascii-pronunciation-rules-for-programmers/

      There you go.

      Us old timer geeks got sick and tired of pronouncing symbols by their proper names containing far too many syllables. So we made one-syllable and on occasion two-syllable nicknames for nearly all of them.

      It prevents much stabbing and bloodshed on the rare occasions we had to speak with each other.

    9. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DuckDuckGo has a few thousand shortcuts for site:example.com domains.

      Not quite correct. They have shortcuts to the built-in search of various web sites. If you use these shortcuts, it'll redirect you to the site (which will perform the search itself.)

      So if I enter !discogs foo, DDG will redirect me to https://www.discogs.com/search...

      They're exactly like Mozilla keywords: https://www-archive.mozilla.or...

    10. Re: Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Hashtag Octothorpe

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by xSander · · Score: 1

      I had never thought about why #! is called "shebang" but now I know, plus Wikipedia enlightened me further.

    12. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who are interested, it's named after the Ricky Martin song.

    13. Re:Bangs: Hair, Sex, and now? by burningcpu · · Score: 1

      Argh, I could have used that link when I was learning scripting. The references used the terms interchangeably, and assumed the jargon to be universal. Anyway, thanks.

  8. Downvoats coming but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fun fact, DDG DOES filter results. Typically those of adult websites but I've run into "hacking" sites too. Doing the same search on bing (yuck), returns both their resutls and the filtered. DDG also recycles the same results so you end up scrolling.. More pages, more ad hits.

    My guess is the influence of Yandex and the recycling of results being cause by asychronious background searching. You may see more results if you wait a minute or two after the first page before continuing.

  9. A Pirate Site Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell is a "Pirate Site Bang"????

    1. Re:A Pirate Site Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      !site is a site bang

      because bang symbol

      if you're five years old you shouldn't say hell

      burma shave

  10. Can you post the full list of banned tags? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you post the full list of banned tags? I would like to know for "research purposes."

  11. dogpile.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone?

  12. google does it differently by houghi · · Score: 1

    Just use filertype:torrent on google. Works great.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. I had recently chosen them as my startpage,instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of Google. but now I changed it back to Google.
    Duckduckgo changes is promises, so I will not use it anymore.

  15. cuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    use anything other than google, you cuck.

    interesting that bing appears to be censoring less than ddg at this point