Let's discuss swisscows.com - Privacy friendly and porn free search engine with it's own advertising concept

Search: https://swisscows.com

About: https://company.swisscows.ch/en

2 Likes

Well, i just use their translation xD so yeah i not know alot so if anyone know more just go ahead & help us

Hard pass here. I think I’ll stick to Yacy and have the search results I want.

If I’m being real here, censoring specific words or word combinations heavily implies at least some knowledge about what you’re searching.

It blocks even words like beheading, when there are certain use cases for the words beheading, like when doing a high school research paper about Lady Jane Grey or Marie Antionette.

I’d much rather whatever students I had in the future run their own Yacy instance, and have nobody know what their searching. As a teacher, you’re not going to know what your students are searching for anyway at home, and most high schoolers are smart enough to switch to one that doesn’t inhibit their research.

4 Likes

I am generally suspicious of family friendly search engines as they have a tendency to e.g. filter information related to gender and sexual minorities, while the information could tell the user that there are other people like them and maybe even talk with a trusted adult if they have one they feel they can trust.

I wasn’t able to test whether Swisscows does this as all searches result into an error message, including their example searches on the front page.

Neither Firefox Tracking Protection or Privacy Badger said that they were blocking anything.

2 Likes

To give an idea of the double standard between words:

This is despite the fact that decapitate and beheading mean the same thing, or almost nearly the same meaning.

3 Likes

I agree. The internet is all about Porn. I don’t need censorship.

2 Likes

The more search engines there are , the more choices people have. Anything to create competition for those self-appointed Internet Overlords the better. Let people choose.

Why people even discuss having machines telling us what is best for us, and what isn’t scares the Hades out of me.

Can’t some people think for themselves as to what they want and don’t want, and if not, why drag everyone else into their perfect Internet world based on what THEY think is right and wrong?

The rest of this is “discussion” - no one has time to read it - it’s for perpetuity posterity sake (unless Mods censor otherwise :slight_smile:)
____________________________________________________________

EXAMPLE: Up until last year around this time, pedophilia was widespread. Bing and Google were the biggest pimps of child abuse (AKA child porn) serving up ebooks, images, and videos. That is, until someone, yep, just ONE person stood up to Microsoft and challenged them. Both pimps have since done a great job of cleaning up their act… but only after they were embarrassed into doing so.

If Google and Bing can remove material because the President of the USA says so, why not block/remove child abuse? Most people find pedophilia abhorrent, deviate behavior. This isn’t about them, so don’t go there. It’s about what S/engines will do until they are told to stop.

But what if as Trump wants, a ban on “fake news” which BTW he got when several obviously satirical sites were taken down as being “fake news”, who else can decides what is fake? Who decides what political ads on Facebook are OK and those that are not (are you not paying attention?)

Someone (never confirmed) and I paraphrase; “Remove one freedom every generation, and in time there will be no freedoms and no one will notice.” That was before the power of Overseers Google and Bing stepping in.
Now, freedoms are being removed every day exponentially and we do notice, but we who notice are the minority - so how come we can’t make a difference? We need to take ‘them’ to task - - - or else.

People can decide at any search prompt what they want, but as in the pedo cases, people didn’t ask for child abuse pictures, the Overlords suggested the pics.

Who should decide? You? No, I happen to know that I am best suited for the job :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

The 'Net has become a cooperate tool used to take our money and tell us what we need to see, buy, think, and do. Not just ‘think’, but how and what to ‘think’. We are being mustered through cattle troughs to the slaughter of our rights to privacy, speech, movement, and expression and there ain’t a search engine that will stop it.

Not all change is good.
Just say’n s’all,

~o~

Maybe we could talk Swisscows into running an “adult” version. I’ve found the results to be very good.

1 Like

Maybe we could ask them to move Kim Kardashian West into the “adult” version along with Kayen West, and every teen celebrity wearing her latest bikini, rapper videos using the “F” word, and news about who Trump slept with, … as well.

My point is, who defines porn?

Agreed. IMO, these ‘porn’ arguments are no different than the war on tobacco which began with higher taxes, the concern over sugar use has been met with higher taxes, now it’s gluten, less we forget MSG, use of salt, and accessing foreign information.

Have we forgotten the attempt to force all porn into TLD XXX? Problem was, define porn!

Perhaps people that complain they don’t like something on the 'net, the result of their own searches, should be made to take lessons on how and where to search.

If the intent is to hide porn from youth - GOOD LUCK!
If the intent is to hide porn by creating a “adult” version, then tax it. Then gov’t will have absolute control over who, for how long, when, from what location, using what devices, and most importantly, SMRC. What am I saying Google!!! ~ M$, FB and ilk do that for the government anyway!

Opinionated and exercising it,
~o~

Adult = unfiltered. Let searchers make their own choices. Most of us don’t want an arbiter of propriety and good taste - and we certainly don’t need censorship.

Hi Liz, I’m honored you took the time to respond,

I should have been more precise. If adult=unfiltered, who decides what will be filtered on the filtered search results?

My question is rhetorical and more food for thought so no need to respond as I know you have a busy slate.

Thanks for all your input around here BTW. It’s helped me a lot.

~o~

1 Like

Nice to e-meet you @Outernaut

lol, Google maybe, but Bing? (This is 4 days ago) — There’s absolutely no accountability or progress in that regard.

A report in January commissioned by TechCrunch found explicit images of children on Bing using search terms like “porn kids.” In response to the report, Microsoft said it would ban results using that term and similar ones.

The Times created a computer program that scoured Bing and other search engines. The automated script repeatedly found images — dozens in all — that Microsoft’s own PhotoDNA service flagged as known illicit content. Bing even recommended other search terms when a known child abuse website was entered into the search box.

Howtogeek.com published a story based on using “gril” instead of “grill”. Bing suggested child porn instead of ‘grills’ - the obvious error.

Bing blamed the client saying the client had previously requested “girls” - however, our research was via fresh O/S installs complete with all patches and fixes, via VPN - to the moment the tests were made. Bings cop-out excuse was a washout using the same terms as their victim, using ‘grils’ instead of ‘grills’. It seemed as if the more hits a site had, or similar searches, the more we were led down the path of depravity.

Thanks for the articles @jonah . In Bings defense tho, I see Bing had cleaned up search terms like “gril” and returning 'grill" instead of ‘JB Girls’ (I’m not trying it !). According to the article, the peeps only have to ask for what they want, and Bing serves it up. Pervs and peeps know not to search “grils” because you’ll get ‘grills’ now.

But the NYTimes and Howtogeek, and even the government agencies don’t get it. It’s not just a few hundred of the same images made by step-dads, or dads. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry producing professional images and videos, complete with professional staging, make-up, video/photographers.The results are sold off as sets. One child could be in as many as 25 - 50 ‘sets’ with each set containing 50 - or more explicit images. Some are bought and uploaded.

IMO - government are afraid of going after them and agencies don’t want to stop it because it’s a perpetual make-work project.

Governments everywhere are afraid to go after them. Why? Just follow the money.

How much money is spent each day to protect the President’s children?

No matter what search engines come to light, most are just using the giants anyway. The only difference is that Bing sees Startpage, Duck and others users are the next victims.

~o~