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.)

HT @koherecoWatchdog

@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.

@aral @lvdd_ @purism @0 BTW, it should be pointed out that is an open access forge. I see that they are in copy, but they are not the author.

@koherecoWatchdog @aral @lvdd_ @purism @0 Thanks for pointing this out. To my knowledge no one who works at Purism is involved in that repo so you should treat that file as the opinions of the owner and not necessarily of Purism.

@koherecoWatchdog @aral @lvdd_ @purism @0 By the way I agree that having outside repos like that on 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 to be an open-access repository ala Github.

@kyle As someone who has used the possibility of having my own (forks of) repos at 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.

woah, hold on. You're calling the CEAP repo "abuse"? On what basis? That accusation is a bit harsh considering no restrictions are posted anywhere. Reg. page says: "Sign in to create issues, write comments, review contributions, and more."

what's "and more"?

Legal page points to a Cloudflare site:

You can't really call any registrations or repo creations "abuse" until Purism publishes their expectations. Otherwise it's just another framagit to ppl.

If Gitlab does not give you granular access controls that enable you to block all unwanted activity while not restricting the desirable activity, the the very least you can do is post intentions.

Otherwise it's like having an open wifi with welcoming SSID, and then getting angry when people use it.


@koherecoWatchdog @eliasr All your points make sense to me. For what it's worth I'm not angry, just a bit surprised, so it's more just a case of trying to fix this for the future at this point.


Our two cents is try keep it open, remove actual abusive content.

Also please remove Cloudflare for your legal page.

@koherecoWatchdog @eliasr

Sign in to participate in the conversation

To support this server and the OMN project