Nine out of ten DuckDuckGo users don't want AI anywhere near their search

[JMGuy]

Like many people with confirmation bias you don't understand the ruling of Dodge vs Ford.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

It doesn't legally mandate that directors of a company only purpose is to uphold stockholder value, but instead that they don't actively undermine it. It still gives them a wide latitude in how they run their company, and thereby profits/dividends shouldn't and/or can't be the sole measure of a public company's performance or success.
Ford had publicly stated that his intentions were to under serve the stockholders in favour of his personal/company goals. And that was the action that the court ruled on. If he had never said it chances are the court case would of never happened.

Secondly it isn't a law, it's a ruling. It applies to the specific case and sets a precedent for future rulings that come before the Michigan court.
No one other than the Ford motor company had to abide by the ruling. If another company's stockholders in a different state felt they were being mistreated by their executives in the same manner they would have to take them to court as well.
Of course that case would have to take into account the previous ruling but wouldn't be bound by it. To strengthen the precedent it would need to go the the Supreme Court and have them rule positively on it. The legislative branch would have to make it law if they so choose to, and then and only then it would make executives legally bound.

The big kicker is tests of the principal ruling seldom go to court for a number of reasons. Executives were ruled to be "duty bound" not "legally bound" which means they simply need to try to the best of their abilities, which is very hard to disprove.
As well executive compensation has been changed so that, due to the tax laws in regard to making more than 1 million in income per year, they now receive much of their compensation in stock and stock options. This places their emphasis on increasing the stock prices making the ruling moot in most cases.

TL/DR Executives of public companies are not legally but duty bound to always keep stockholder value in mind as they run the company. But have enormous latitude in how the do it, and as long as they can show they're are making their best efforts in this regard aren't disregarding any rulings on the matter.

You’re correcting a claim I didn’t make. I’m not arguing that the law forces executives to maximize profits in every circumstance—I’m describing how public companies operate in practice. Shareholder value is the dominant organizing incentive because boards, markets, compensation, and investor pressure all enforce it, regardless of the outer legal latitude directors technically have. “Not legally absolute” doesn’t mean “not structurally decisive,” and that’s the point.

 

[JMGuy]

Everyone out here enjoying life in 3D but this guy sees it all in 2D and thinks he's superior

Big confidence, zero argument, sport. People who are capable engage with actual points.

 

[human7]

No, it doesn't. There's no such thing as "AI", and machine learning isn't and never will be AI. keywords aren't AI or machine learning. Imagine not even knowing the difference.

Your condescending attitude is unwarranted. Do you think that everyone is going to tag their stuff as AI generated so that keyword filtering will work? Of course not, so a true no-AI filter will need some AI/ML behind it to work at least halfway effectively. If DuckDuckGo doesn't employ that, it won't be a particularly effective filter. That said, how long generated AI remains distinguishable from human created content is a matter of some debate.

Yes, AI does exist, and AI/ML are essentially the same thing (AI involves more deep learning, but it's still fundamentally ML).

 

[human7]

A slight tangent..............but has anybody else using the Brave browser found that Youtube will no longer open videos at all now? Firefox/Waterfox are still OK though.

Maybe related to this? https://www.techspot.com/community/...-bug-its-another-ad-blocker-crackdown.296209/

 

[RaXelliX]

The problem is what people say and what people do are two very different things.

You ask gamers, and they HATE microtransactions, DLC, always online DRM, ece, yet you look at the amount of money games with those systems bring in and it's obvious that people are either lying or are representative of a very small minority of users.

You ask automotive buyers, and they want physical controls, less whistles, and fewer screens. But what sells the most? The high end trim packages loaded with bells, whistles, screens, and annoyances.

I could go on.

Don't confuse the lack of choice with conscious choice.

If there are few game that don't do DLC, MT, DRM etc then simply by reducing the choices, the user is left with a choice to stop playing most new games altogether or play them and complain.

 

[Tantor]

A slight tangent..............but has anybody else using the Brave browser found that Youtube will no longer open videos at all now? Firefox/Waterfox are still OK though.

Interesting. Youtube now forbids viewing videos using a Vivaldi private session.You get a screen that says "This content isn't available. Try again later."

In some cases I found Vivaldi + Nord VPN is also forbidden.

Also yt-dlp now fails to save Youtube videos. You get an error message saying 'forbidden'. The yt-dlp developers say you need to enable a javascript processer like Deno to run a solver script for youtube.

Youtube is tightening the screws. They want full tracking.

 

[LemmingO]

I would love to see AI held to the same green standard as the rest of industry. I'm sipping my coffee through a paper straw and being nudged into buying an EV, but these motherf****** are tearing into aquifers and our grid as if regulation didn't exist. Corruption must be huge between Big Tech and city/town councils. The Mayor will be driving his new Tesla to work, but sometime in the near future, we won't be able to even rent property and go back to serfdom.

 

[ZedRM]

There have been polls like this all over the net. FireFox, Brave and others have all seen that users do not want AI built in to their browsing experience.

 

[Madethedevilcry]

People want less interference, less tracking, less ads and more actual content, all of which are pure poison to a modern online platform seeking profit. The people want products, the tech companies want the people to be the product, but they have so little to offer in return for such a steep fee. A person's level of awareness of this determines how they survive in the modern connected world and how often they're taken advantage of by the services they decide to use.

well said!

 

[Madethedevilcry]

I would love to see AI held to the same green standard as the rest of industry. I'm sipping my coffee through a paper straw and being nudged into buying an EV, but these motherf****** are tearing into aquifers and our grid as if regulation didn't exist. Corruption must be huge between Big Tech and city/town councils. The Mayor will be driving his new Tesla to work, but sometime in the near future, we won't be able to even rent property and go back to serfdom.

this is the simple facts.

 

[Gezzer]

You’re correcting a claim I didn’t make. I’m not arguing that the law forces executives to maximize profits in every circumstance—I’m describing how public companies operate in practice. Shareholder value is the dominant organizing incentive because boards, markets, compensation, and investor pressure all enforce it, regardless of the outer legal latitude directors technically have. “Not legally absolute” doesn’t mean “not structurally decisive,” and that’s the point.

"Management is legally required to grow long-term value"

Seems to me that it's exactly what you said there friend...

 

[JMGuy]

"Management is legally required to grow long-term value"

Seems to me that it's exactly what you said there friend...

Again, you’ve seemingly missed the point I’ve been making. Public companies are structurally oriented to prioritize shareholders over users.

I’m talking about how public companies actually behave and why: fiduciary duty sets the boundary, but business judgment, incentives, competition, markets, and investor pressure do the real enforcing.

You’ve reframed this into a narrower technical reading I wasn’t making, then nitpicked legal theory to avoid the obvious. Whether it’s “legally absolute” or not is irrelevant—the incentive structure doesn’t just enforce shareholder primacy in practice, it overwhelmingly dominates decision-making.

Even when companies talk about users, shareholders are the hard constraint. Arguing normatively is a debate not based on how things actually function.

 

[Gezzer]

Again, you’ve seemingly missed the point I’ve been making. Public companies are structurally oriented to prioritize shareholders over users.

I’m talking about how public companies actually behave and why: fiduciary duty sets the boundary, but business judgment, incentives, competition, markets, and investor pressure do the real enforcing.

You’ve reframed this into a narrower technical reading I wasn’t making, then nitpicked legal theory to avoid the obvious. Whether it’s “legally absolute” or not is irrelevant—the incentive structure doesn’t just enforce shareholder primacy in practice, it overwhelmingly dominates decision-making.

Even when companies talk about users, shareholders are the hard constraint. Arguing normatively is a debate not based on how things actually function

Let's make a pact to just ignore each other...

 

[JMGuy]

Let's make a pact to just ignore each other...

Finding it difficult to just agree to disagree? That’s fine, but I’m not going to agree to simply ignore your commentary.

How about having a civilized conversation next time, rather than attacking my perspective as confirmation-biased and then trying to lecture me? I’ve only been defending and trying to clarify my position.

I’m happy to set it aside if you are. We don’t have to agree on everything—but civility really isn’t that difficult.