The chosen country is important. `uva` may be more commonly associated with the University of Virginia in the US. For Netherlands (same query) https://search.brave.com/search?q=uva&country=nl will correctly point to Universiteit van Amsterdam.
At present we default to country US. We're looking to implement better defaults soon.
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to address my problem, however me having to change the country manually sounds like an additional workaround. I wish you the best luck though with your search!
The whole point of DDG is to respect privacy. That means knowing as little about its users as possible. The country select actually improves the (impression of) privacy for me.
Well each page is 100mic roughly for 80gsm paper which is pretty standard. So if you did something like a 200 page book that is 20mm's which at 72 dpi roughly 54px's or roughly 27px's for a 100 page book.
That's excluding any cover page, which heavily depends on binding/hard cover/what ever else.
This statement is misleading. Firstly, for context here's the paragraph you ought to be referring to:
> This experiment also includes the data collection tool Cliqz uses to build its recommendation engine. Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit. Cliqz uses several techniques to attempt to remove sensitive information from this browsing data before it is sent from Firefox. Cliqz does not build browsing profiles for individual users and discards the user's IP address once the data is collected. Cliqz's code is available for public review and a description of these techniques can be found here.
This section is a horrible write up of what happened. Over the years, among a lot of other privacy tech (e.g. [0][1][2]), we developed a privacy-preserving data collection framework we call Human Web [3]. The gist of it is simple: Users contribute data. There's no way to link any two messages with one another making it impossible to build profiles out of the data. In fact, most of the URLs are dropped thanks to these strict checks. Mozilla, Princeton University and Red Pen Team have audited the approach. The code is open-sourced [4]. Feel free to audit it, and also please feel free to use it in your projects. If you are genuinely interested in the approach, please read [3] and let's discuss details.
Here's the bigger issue. We have created an unhealthy, and wrong narrative around privacy vs data collection. It's a false dichotomy. We also wrote at length about this here [5]. Data from people, is not the same as personal data. Record linkage here is key, and we prevent it - even at a network level [6].
I know that Cliqz initially sourced clickstream data from companies outside the EU (in particular Isreal) to build its search index on. Most of this data was not acquired with the informed consent of the users, who were "donating" it unwittingly through browser extensions they had installed. I think this eventually led Cliqz to build its own extensions and acquire Ghostery, which had amassed an enormous stockpile of personal data (related to cookies in particular) using a similar scheme. So I'd say a little skepticism is warranted, even though it's possible that Cliqz really turned the boat around later in terms of respecting user privacy.
> There's a lot of FUD regarding this. We outline what happened here: <Link provided>
Yep, I still stand by the statement that it was a debacle and was a poor decision by Mozilla. All parties should have known that users wouldn't appreciate the privacy violation and as a user of Firefox it was disheartening to see.
For what it's worth, I also still stand behind the idea that this just dropped search diversity and user options. There also seems like other things that Cliqz did helped further user privacy and rights. Sad to see that go
When someone points out that someone did something bad, clarifying they only did it to 1% of one country's users isn't a super strong defense.
I don't think this was a good decision by Mozilla, especially as Germany is very privacy focused and its marketshare in Germany was quite good. The very next year I believe marketshare dropped in Germany substantially.
This was another Mozilla self-own, and it was painful to watch from inside while I worked there.
> When someone points out that someone did something bad, clarifying they only did it to 1% of one country's users isn't a super strong defense.
I don't see where I made this "clarification".
Let's be clear. Firefox was trying to test switching from Google to Cliqz (where it had a stake). Mozilla had a difficult time trying to break the golden cage they find themselves in. To their credit, they did try. Ultimately the Cliqz-Firefox integration was, unilaterally, cancelled. If your main source of revenue comes from your “competitor” you are slowly pushing yourself to irrelevance.
And also, the privacy issue again: I addressed a similar question in another comment in this thread [0]. If you want to spread FUD, please make a proper case.
> Mozilla had a difficult time trying to break the golden cage they find themselves in.
They could have partnered with Yahoo (and in fact did, at least temporarily), or Bing, or DuckDuckGo. Any of these search engines would be chomping at the bit to become the default for a browser as popular as Firefox.
