Try asking Google about the genocide, and it will say the issue is "nuanced" and then proceed to feed the official Isnotreali position alongside the factual one. For this reason and others, I use the udm=14 url parameter in my Google searches. Unfortunately since recently, Google also promotes the genocide apologist friendly search results. I like reporting those as inaccurate, but it doesn't seem to do any good -- maybe if more people did it it would make more of a difference.
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2026
58 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
43308 readers
145 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Why are you still using google?
Startpage FTW
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism
But there are better choices.
With Ecosia and noai.DDG right there, I don't see any reason why would you ever use Google.
I only see it when I open a new browser on a VM or something by accident, and it just sucks and makes me immediately leave.
Most of my search usage is looking up concrete websites because I don't have history on and am lazy to remember or type the whole URL, and google is the only one where I have to click through a screen blocking dialog then scroll through LLM bullshiting about something before I can get to the link.
Ecosia has their dubiously "green AI", and do union busting. Source
Ah, fuck. Of course.
Hey I appreciate the insight and perspective. But I've got to contest the source. Its not holding any weight as a reputable and verifiable resource. I'm not saying this as a jab or attack on you. Its a world of bad info, misinformation, and where I fear your link lands - hyperbole - so please consider this resource rather than a lengthy post:
https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/faq/reliable
Ecosia may well be exaggerating Eco claims or green washing. But to counter those claims, stronger evidence is needed.
FYI, "Pivot to AI" do aggregate "AI" news with critical commentary, but if you'd clicked through you would see they cite sources quite thoroughly.
I forgot to mention. To get Ecosia financials, you can request them from the applicable oversight office in Germany. Aggregates, like Candid, have access to that too. That's the sort ofndue diligence I'd expect; not a link to their oversight page and suggestion they are hiding something. Many large nonprofits have financial overviews like that, and doesn't suggest organizational rot or greenwashing in this case.
A quick glance suggests that in Germany, you can request a social benefit corp's financials. If like nonprofit law in the USA, you can request a 990 from any 501(c)3 and they are required, by law, to provide one within a certain time frame.
Hi haverholm.
So I did click through again and re-read, but I stand by my assessment that the sources aren't good. I wouldn't consider them reputable and the author doesn't offer verifiable information to support the sources linked. We've got:
- A link to ecosia statements
- A link to ecosia financials
- T3N post
- Glassdoor
If I'm missing other links, let me know. I don't see any others. Again, I don't see anything that suggests the claims are more than hyperbole. For their financials, for example. Show me where the problem is, speak to it, back up the claim with expert review or hard numbers. As the article is written, that chain just isn't there and I'm left to take the authors word for it that a problem exists. Glassoldoor and LinkedIn are not evidence of malfeasance. Hence my conclusion and attempt to inform. Which the poster did not appreciate (full disclosure, I blocked them. I don't have time for disingenuous insults).
Propublica, ICIJ, 404 media are great examples of what I'm trying to point out. And, though my white whale, helping everyone step back and evaluate what a source is and why its credible is important to me.
I appreciate you chiming in and asking me to reasses, however. Always happy to, especially if I find it helped me reveal a mistake or change my thought.
Let me double check. I've admitted being wrong and missing something before, so happy to reengage.
Tried Ecosia but they want you to turn off an adblocker as they are ad supported. I don't like ads as they contribute to overconsumption.
Tried DDG and it was solid but it wasn't very good in local search results (I live outside of the US).
So I'm using Qwant for the time being.
What's Ecosia and noai.ddg?
Search engines, I use Noai.duckduckgo.com as my standard and its been nice.
https://www.ecosia.org/, a search engine iirc non-profit that is trying to be as energy-neutral on renewables as possible, while also investing all of their profit into climate action, i.e planting trees. They have transparent budgets and do look pretty trustworthy, although I've never really looked into them too much.
noai.duckduckgo.com a version of Duck Duck Go, a pretty well known search engine, that disables the AI summary by default via an easy link.
Yeah I don't like to have stuff presented to me in this way because then it makes me think there is going to be a bias, I don't need things presented to me or explained or broken down unless I specifically asked for it, I just want the information
Are websites still protected by Section 230 when the results are editorialized on the fly by an LLM?
This is undecided by courts.
From what I've found from some simple research, it's possible that if it's reproducing the same information as another user that the website is protected, possibly even if the LLM modified the exact presentation of that information.
If it's creating new claims, then I think it'd be likely that whoever is running the service would be liable. Who knows though, since they might just claim that the new claims are from its training data and therefore they are protected.
In an ideal world, we'd just follow Germany's example and hold the website liable for any new content generated by a LLM. Ideally, if you make shit up, you made the claim, and if you're parroting a user, the user made the claim.
I'd imagine due to current circumstances, the US would want to shield AI companies though because politicians want money and the SCOTUS is useless.
The new AI summary at the top is quite helpful imo.
This reminds me of Rossman's praise for the AI overviews when it helpfully informed everyone that he has paid sponsors and his friend was a 9/11 terrorist. Except it wasn't praise.
The AI summary at the top is like asking a college freshman to summarize the latest research in a field. It's accurate enough to be dangerous, but not accurate enough to be reliable.
It's very helpful if you want to confidently get fed incorrect information on occasions. At one point I tried to get direct link to my profile by searching "JohnEdwa Lemmy", and that summary claimed I was the admin of sopuli.xyz, the Lemmy instance I use. Absolutely no clue why, as I have never been an admin of anything online.
Apparently today I'm the main developer of Boost for Reddit.
(Refresh) No, it actually meant Sync.
(Refresh) Or maybe I also made Pinpoint. Look, the source is Wikipedia, it can't be wrong.
