This DuckDuckGo audit by @purism is a sobering read:
Remember that DuckDuckGo is venture capital-funded which means that they must exit—either become a publicly-traded multi-billion-dollar company (sell to the public) or sell to one of the incumbents.
(What we need is a publicly-funded but independently run search engine. The EU could create such a thing… if they didn’t have they heads firmly entrenched up Silicon Valley’s bumhole.)
1) A series of allegations with varying quality of sourcing is *not* an audit. As @lvdd_ said, it's just an opinion.
2) It is not the #EU's job to provide commercial services. Not that you'd want them to, considering how useless they are.
3) Fully agree with your observation about the EU having their heads up Silly Valley's arse. Like, guess who runs their cloud infrastructure?
@0 @purism @lvdd_ @aral 1) it's both fact & opinion & the factual elements are cited. There's nothing wrong w/opinion, even scientific studies have them. There is a bug tracker for lack of citation issues. 2) I don't think Aral implied that the service need be commercial. The EU was handing out grant money a few years ago for decentralization projects. #YaCy would be eligible for that kind of grant.
@koherecoWatchdog @aral @lvdd_ @purism @0 By the way I agree that having outside repos like that on source.puri.sm is confusing and I admit that until now I didn't realize we allowed it. I believe this is simply an oversight in permissions we granted people who requested accounts so they could file bugs and contribute to *our* projects.
It's something we are looking to address now because we don't intend source.puri.sm to be an open-access repository ala Github.
@kyle As someone who has used the possibility of having my own (forks of) repos at source.puri.sm I would like to say: please don't remove that completely, it really helps a lot for someone who wants to contribute. Maybe forks of existing repos there could still be allowed, just say it's not allowed to have repos for completely separate projects there? It's a shame if it becomes harder to contribute.
@eliasr I totally agree and that was the kind of thing we were going for originally, not expecting (perhaps naively) that it would be abused.
@koherecoWatchdog @eliasr That's fair. I didn't really have a better word at hand to use for it and "abuse" is too extreme, especially since, as you say, we didn't publish any restrictions or policies. Maybe "unexpected use" ?
To be fair I wasn't just thinking of this case when I wrote that (although I didn't make that clear in my reply) but was also referring to a lot of the gitlab spam that our administrators have had to deal with as well.