OK, here's a citation.
www.muktware.com/articles/3058/duckduckgo-doesnt-show-leading-open-source-projects-google-does
http://www.youtube.com/embed/jtR6bFS1KPs
If you can't load the article directly, there's a copy at the Internet
Archive.
I tried a few searches myself and got similar results. That does not prove
malice on DDG's part, but it does show you that you can't trust them to get
things right. Microsoft is so malicious that it is folly, if not intentional
malice, to pass them on the way DDG does.
If the only way to protect your privacy is to go through a proxy, why is DDG
given preferential treatment? Doesn't that mean their promise is meaningless
even if they had the technical competence and legal framework required to
keep it?
