SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Duck.com now points to DuckDuckGo, not Google
Non-tracking search engine, DuckDuckGo, is now a little easier to find online after the company acquired the premium generic domain name duck.com — thereby shaving a few letters off its usual URL. This means browsing to duck.com now automatically redirects to DuckDuckGo.com.
The twist in this tale is that duck.com's prior owner was Google. And DDG had accused the search giant of anti-competitive behavior — by pointing duck.com to its own search engine, Google.com, and thus "consistently" confusing DDG users (duck.co having long pointed to the DDG community page.)...
[...] [Calls] for antitrust scrutiny of tech giants have been rising in the US. And Google's dominant position in Internet search and smartphone platforms, along with its pincer grip (along with Facebook) on the online ad market, position it for some special attention on that front. So the company quietly passing off duck.com now — after using it to redirect to Google.com for close to a decade — to a pro-privacy search rival smacks of concern over competition optics, at the very least.
Also at Gizmodo.
Previously: Google Throws DuckDuckGo a Bone, Adds Redirect on duck.com Landing Page
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Saturday December 15 2018, @02:15PM (1 child)
Oddly enough, in general I agree with you. What gets my goat is people appropriating precise technical terms and using them in contexts that detract from the technical meaning. Where you can't find a word that means what you want to say (thesauruses* can be helpful here) a short descriptive phrase or a neologism is fine. Mugging an existing word and making it less precise riles me. I agree with people who say that the point of language is to communicate: and therefore, imprecision in language hinders communication, so deliberate introduction of imprecision is to be avoided. Obviously opinions differ in this regard and it is fruitless arguing over the point: a case of de gustibus non est disputandum [wikipedia.org].
*Some might say thesauri, but unfortunately my Latin is not good enough guaranteed to correctly decline a second declension noun that originates from the Greek θησαυρός. It used to be a mark of learning to sprinkle your writings with grammatically correct Greek and Latin; but getting it wrong is a terrible faux pas; and many authorities now will opine that using an Anglo-Saxon plural is perfectly acceptable - so the plural of octopus can be octopuses, rather than octopodes (or even ὀκτώπόδες ); and the plural of virus can be viruses.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Saturday December 15 2018, @02:21PM
not good enough guaranteed to correctly decline
The above was an error in editing. It should read: "not good enough to guarantee correctly to decline" or "not good enough to guarantee declining correctly"