>Also, freedom of speech is a principle applied on the relation of people with the state, an issue for public law. This is about a private enterprise and its relations with its users, subject to the regulation of private law.
This is absolutely not what the principle of free speech is. Private companies censoring information can be every bit as insidious and damaging to society, and of course falls under the umbrella of free speech. I think you are confusing free speech for the U.S. Constitution. This only applies to American speech, and only a narrow kind of speech. When someone on the internet describes or discusses "free speech," they are typically discussing something far broader.
DDG has the right to provide poor search results. Users here are lamenting that fact.
Imagine thinking that excluding literal disinformation when it is not requested is a poor search result. The job of the search engine is to provide people the information they want. Not showing people lies when they want facts seems to be exactly the correct decision.
I don't think most people would have an issue if DDG and whoever else only removed disinformation and they never had any false positives. The problem is DDG is not perfect and will censor real information while calling it disinformation.
Look at all the covid disinformation that turned out to be accurate or potentially accurate. The media and fact checkers have been completely awful at determining facts. Why do you think DDG will have any better luck?
First, define “disinformation.” Second, prove that only this disinformation is being suppressed. Lastly, prove that I don’t actually want to see some of this disinformation. I write articles and checking official Russian media is part of ensuring I’m writing factually.
Your problem is thinking that I don’t have the right to see media I want to see.
You think that ddg not showing as much disinformation is intruding on your right to see the media you want to see? You know that you can still find disinformation by explicitly searching for it right?
This is absolutely not what the principle of free speech is. Private companies censoring information can be every bit as insidious and damaging to society, and of course falls under the umbrella of free speech. I think you are confusing free speech for the U.S. Constitution. This only applies to American speech, and only a narrow kind of speech. When someone on the internet describes or discusses "free speech," they are typically discussing something far broader.
DDG has the right to provide poor search results. Users here are lamenting that fact.