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
Perhaps send their support an email about it to see what they say
Pity they aren’t on mastodon :/
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.
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!
@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.
Pretty much all of those “”“news”“” sources have been witnessed to spread complete fabrications and fake news, and were used to undermine democracy on this continent, much like how Fox News and the likes are actively undermining democracy across the pond by spreading lies as “opinion pieces”.