For the people who have not yet decided on a search engine. The most EU way you can go is Ecosia or Qwant as they are building their own search index.
Ecosia is my personal pick as its also aimed at planting trees and they have quite a good browser alongside it.
Now if only anyone of them would offer a paid ad-free option. I’d drop Kagi in an instant
I use Kagi because of their strong stance against censorship. If I want to find information about controversial topics, I expect my search engine to give me the results it has crawled. I use this community test list to determine if they’re censoring results. Most search engines fail this now. I imagine any EU search engine will fail this on day one.
@JasSmith @madjo Lemme guess… 'Cause 'Murica is the only country that knows freedom?
If things like that are censored it usually happens on the ISP level, not at the search engine. Those “censored” pages might rank lower but there could be dozens of perfectly fine explanations for that. Mostly because some of those pages know diddly squat about SEO or their pages might be socially relevant but are really bad at / for driving ad revenue.
But calling that “censorship” is IMHO not correct.
No I mean actual censorship. For example, RT and Sputnik. They have also banned PressTV and CGTN. They suspended broadcast licenses for EADaily / Eurasia Daily, Fondsk, Lenta, NewsFront, RuBaltic, SouthFront, Strategic Culture Foundation, and Krasnaya Zvezda / Tvzvezda. All of these sites would be explicitly banned from any EU based search engine.
Note that I am not giving American tech companies a free pass here. Google is one of the worst.
Also note that “censorship” doesn’t exclusively refer to government censorship. That is an American-centric perspective using the Constitution as the lens. Censorship is often conducted by individuals and organisations. In this case I am referring to the EU.
@JasSmith Well there is a whole discussion to be had about banning media who is spouting lie after lie after lie and are propaganda machines for the respective regimes.
But before you just assume censorship… try it yourself. I can open rt.com, tass etc and search for them.
Sometimes the search result are all nerfed to hell, but they are there.
And some pages (Zwezda) seem to have blocked access from my country at least, but that’s on their site & RT does not have a valid certificate…
rt.com is blocked for me. If you can access it and you’re based in the EU it means you’re using a foreign DNS provider like 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8.
I understand well the arguments used by governments to restrict access to books and websites. I reject them. I believe I am the best person to decide which knowledge I am allowed to access. I am certainly far more qualified than the government.
@JasSmith And you fall in trap many intelligent people fall into… just because YOU may be qualified to discern what is lie and what is truth and know how to verify sources properly, does not mean that the majority of people does and that is where we need legislation to take the helm to prevent greater damage to society as a whole.
“The masses have no habit of self-reliance or original action”
It’s a perfectly valid ideological divide here, so I can’t tell you you’re “wrong.” I would argue that in order to believe that democracy is valid, one must subscribe to the belief in individual agency. That is, the ability for people to make rational decisions about not only themselves, but their society. If one believes that, they should believe that the same people must have access to as much knowledge as they wish - especially if it’s from the guys who oppose the current people in power. Democracy fails to function if the people in power can suppress criticism.
@JasSmith BTW… changing your DNS provider is a piece of cake, so censorship on that level would not be very effective unless ALL DNS providers would decide to block something.
I work in IT so I can confidently inform you that the vast majority of people do not change their DNS providers. Very few people would know how. Recall that my comment above is not about how easy circumventing censorship is, it was about the censorship existing at all, and how the EU would censor results in a search engine they create.
@JasSmith I know. IT Admin myself…
@JasSmith My DNS provider is dns0.eu by the way. On all my connections. Solidly based in the EU.
I can confirm it’s resolving rt.com. I’ve tested on two ISPs here in Denmark and both block the domain. I’m wondering if there are regional differences in the legislation or edicts.
Why do you imagine that?
The EU has made numerous moves towards restricting free speech and communication over the last decade, especially in the technology space. These include:
The DSA imposes strict regulations on large online platforms and search engines (such as Google and Meta).
Requires platforms to remove “illegal content” quickly, though the definition of illegal content varies by country.
Mandates content moderation transparency but can pressure platforms to suppress speech preemptively.
Enables regulators to demand access to platform algorithms and recommend content moderation changes.
Forces messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal to comply with EU orders, potentially compromising end-to-end encryption.
Primarily aimed at tech monopolies, but also affects search engines and app stores.
Limits the ability of platforms to rank their own services higher (e.g., Google prioritizing its own results).
Forces companies like Apple to open up iMessage to other messaging services, potentially impacting security.
Requires platforms to remove flagged terrorist content within one hour or face heavy fines.
No clear appeals process, raising concerns about automatic censorship by algorithms.
Governments can demand removals across all EU member states, limiting national sovereignty over content moderation.
Although GDPR focuses on privacy, it has been used to delist certain search results (right to be forgotten).
Some critics argue that GDPR can be weaponized to suppress critical information about public figures.
Requires platforms to filter copyrighted content before it is uploaded.
Forces platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook to proactively block content using automated filters, which often lead to false positives and excessive censorship.
Criticized for making memes and satire more difficult to share due to automated copyright enforcement.
Although voluntary at first, compliance with fact-checking and disinformation policies is now mandatory under the DSA.
Forces social media companies to demonetize or downrank “misinformation,” often without clear definitions.
Involves close cooperation with government-backed fact-checkers, raising concerns about political bias.
Requires messaging platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal) to scan private messages for child abuse content.
Critics argue this destroys end-to-end encryption, making all private communication vulnerable.
Could lead to mass surveillance under the guise of child protection.
Requires all online political ads to be labeled and traceable.
Platforms must track funding sources, but unclear definitions of political content could impact activism and independent journalism.
Could be used to limit grassroots campaigns that lack formal funding structures.
Gives the EU more oversight over media ownership and state influence on journalism.
Some journalists worry it could be used to pressure media outlets to align with EU narratives.
These are just the laws. There have been uncounted statements by EU leaders about greater control over the kind of information they wish to allow transmitted in the EU. All of these Acts are rooted in good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. At minimum, a significant portion of the results in the test list above would be banned under existing legislation.
Ah yes, because regulations are so horrible, right?
It stands in the way of “innovation”.
God forbid we protect our citizens!
I have whiplash. You’ve gone from an implied “that’s not happening” to “okay so it’s happening, and here’s why it’s a good thing!” Why feign ignorance if you knew that I was correct?
I don’t believe any government has the right to restrict which books and news sites I should be allowed to access. I think I am the best person to decide which knowledge I should have access to.
Yes. By default we don’t want any government intervention. But the “government overreach” needs to be addressed on the specific cases where it happens.
While this statement is true sometimes, it is also again an oversimplification. I don’t think even you believe this. If a website contains illegal content, would you really prefer for the government to not intervene?
Classic examples would be the sale of hard drugs and child pictures.
We all agree more than we disagree. But communication is hard and most subjects, especially the hard ones, are not black and white.
That’s a fair and nuanced take. You’re right that there should be some exceptions for illegal content, but my line is clearly much further into the freedom spectrum than the EU has drawn that line. To roll up to my original claim: they would immediately ban many sites on any search engine they created, and they would do so for many reasons I am uncomfortable with.