Empowering Choice: Firefox Partners with Qwant for a Better Web
Empowering Choice: Firefox Partners with Qwant for a Better Web
blog.mozilla.org
Empowering Choice: Firefox Partners with Qwant for a Better Web | The Mozilla Blog
68 comments
-
-
Pass. Qwant has had its share of controversies, regardless their results aren't better than DDG.
If Mozilla was serious about this they would run their own Searx instance and let people choose what engines they wanted to use.
-
Is this instance of searx safe (I cannot self host) Also how is its privacy and performance compared to DDG?
-
What I linked to is a listing of public Searx instances. You can look at the list and see things like uptime, where they are hosted, etc.
For performance I find it much better than DDG. In the settings page you can choose which search engines you wish to use, for example Brave, Stract, and Qwant. You can also tailor results by adding things like Lemmy, F-Droid, and Anna's Archive.
-
-
DDG is inherently bad because it's hosted in the USA and has to comply with those laws and gag orders. Nothing I've heard about Qwant makes it seem like a worse option.
-
Wtf is Qwant?
Edit: oh, OK, it's a search engine. Next questions, what is the nature of the "partnership" and how is this better or different than DDG?
-
how is this better or different than DDG?
Qwant is using its own index
plus Bing. If I remember DDG only using Bing's index and DDG started to censored results in 2022. -
Sometimes better search results than DDG (but about the same), EU based (France), offers a Openstreetmap based alternative to google maps (opposed to ddg using Apple Maps) and a slightly worse privacy policy are the main differences
-
what is the nature of the “partnership”
The partnership is entirely of monetary nature. Like all "partnerships" Mozilla has with 3rd parties that are integrated into Firefox.
That is their business concept. Those companies pay high amounts of money, and Mozilla adds their links into the browser or sends them "anonymized" usage statistics for advertisement purposes.
-
-
There's no way Mozilla is replacing Google as the default, so what are they actually announcing here? I didn't read any actual results thats happening. Are they just adding Qwant as an option in the search engine settings?
-
Too bad about the choice for qwant. I've been using them for many years and they have big flaws: they block visits from unsupported countries, so if you're traveling, you're fucked. They also started blocking ad blocking users and their main webpage is full of crap that you have to disable manually. Their support is non existing. And they use the same censorship as Microsoft. I moved to brave search recently
-
This part of the post suggests that Qwant will not become the default search engine, but given the millions that Mozilla gets from Google it should not surprise anyone.
Did you know you could choose the search engine of your choice right from your Firefox URL bar?
-
This means Google isn't paying the millions to be the default anymore??
Seems to be an awful news then, that money was useful for development and a default is trivial to change
-
I didn't see a line that suggests they're putting Qwant as default, only that they're making it available as a search provider, just as DuckDuckGo and others are.
They say:
Did you know you could choose the search engine of your choice right from your Firefox URL bar?
-
-
Has anyone here used Qwant? I've seen it mentioned a handful of times but I've not tried it myself.
-
I had used it for a while in the past. The results were surprisingly good. I have moved to other search engines to experiment since then, but I have nothing bad to say about my time with Qwant.
-
I've used it a long time now. I find it to have much more relevant results than DDG did last time I tried.
-
deleted by creator
-
-
I would love to but it's still unavailable in my country :/
-
-
Isn't Qwant glorified Bing?
-
Isn't Duckduckgo?
-
-
Doesn't Mozilla rely on Google for default search? Does this change that relationship?
-
Doesn’t Mozilla rely on Google for default search?
and money...mainly the money.
Does this change that relationship?
Unknown at this time.
-
Yeah... Things like this partnership, plus publishing posts against things Google is doing (https://blog.mozilla.org/en/privacy-security/googles-protected-audience-protects-advertisers/), might spook Google a bit. Mozilla rely on receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from Google every year. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
-
But is Qwant going to be default?
-
-
this is sick, love qwant and hope this gives them more resources
-
It started appearing in my search engines list after every update and I remove it from the list every time.
-
Why?
-
Because thats imposed and I find myself comfortable with DDG. If I wanted Qwant, I would have added it myself.
Why should they keep adding it every update?
-
-
68 comments
doesn't duckduckgo do the same thing at this point with tracker links? it also uses bing
I would use SearxNG instead, using a public instance like searx.be. It is really lightweight, gets results from multiple indexes and is very privacy-friendly.
Honestly, I set up SearxNG on my own server, and it's not very nice to use, not very configurable and doesn't return high quality results. It's also kinda slow. Maybe I'm missing something?
I'm sorry but that is not correct. In the link that you shared to their privacy statement it is explicitly stated that they do not collect your identity when using the service. They say that your identity " is the information we use to ensure that you are who you say you are when you make a de-listing request, report or create an account. This includes: first name, last name, email address."
Furthermore, unlike duckduckgo which to my knowledge relies entirely on Bing's search index, Qwant does actually index the web itself and only uses the Bing index when a search returns insufficient hits from their own index. When they query the microsoft index they send the following data along: "Search keywords; Information about the browser you are using (the User Agent); The first three bytes of your IP address; The approximate geographic area at the origin of the search, at the scale of a region or city; The salty hash generated from your IP address, your User Agent and a salt changing no later than every 3 months; A random token generated by Qwant (aiming to limit data cross-checking)."
I do not know much about DuckDuckGo, but from an initial read the privacy policy is much more vague than Qwant's, not mentioning any specific information that is shared. As they are a US company, they are also not covered by the general data protection regulation.
In general, both search engines seem to do a good job at protecting users' privacy, which to me sounds like something that should be encouraged, not polluted with misinformation.
DuckDuckGo claims to also use more than just Bing.
Thank you for informing us. This is what I wanted to know.
what are you making misleading claims about Qwant for??? if you click your own damn link you’ll see that the only case where they need to collect your name is if you make an account (completely unnecessary), make a de-listing request (to verify that you are who you say you are before removing something, otherwise i could just go and have jeff bezos removed), or if you report something.
also, 80% of your bullet points after “user agent” are redundant because they are literally just what makes up a user agent. newsflash: every single website you ever visit in your life collects your user agent because it needs to know whether to give you the mobile or the desktop version of the site. this has nothing to do with privacy in this case, you’re just slandering to slander
DuckDuckGo is US-based and founded by the person who previously founded “The Names Database”.