DuckDuck Privacy. Go, Go, Go
August 8, 2025
We all know Google tracks us across the Web. But we can avoid that if we use a privacy-touting alternative, right? Not necessarily. Simple Analytics reveals, “Google Is Tracking You (Even When You Use DuckDuckGo).” Note that Simple Analytics is a Google Analytics competitor. So let us keep that in mind as we consider its blog’s assertions. Still, writer Iron Brands cites a study by Safety Detectives as he writes:
“The study analyzed browsing patterns in the US, UK, Switzerland, and Sweden. They used a virtual machine and VPN to simulate users in these countries. By comparing searches on Google and DuckDuckGo, researchers found Google still managed to collect data (often without the user knowing). Here’s how: Google doesn’t just track people through Search or Gmail. Its invisible code runs on millions of sites through Google Analytics, AdSense ads, YouTube embeds, and other background services like Fonts or Maps. That means even if you’re using DuckDuckGo, you’re not totally out of Google’s reach. In Switzerland and Sweden, using DuckDuckGo cut Google tracking by half. But in the US, more than 40% of visited pages still sent data back to Google, despite using a privacy search engine. That’s largely because many US websites rely on Google’s tools for ads and traffic analysis.”
And here we thought Google made such tools affordable out of generosity. The post continues:
“This isn’t just about search engines. It’s about how deeply Google is embedded into the internet’s infrastructure. Privacy-conscious users often assume that switching to DuckDuckGo or Brave is enough. This research says otherwise. … You need more than just a private browser or search engine to reduce tracking. Google’s reach comes from third-party scripts that websites willingly add.”
To owners of those websites, Brands implores them to stop contributing to the problem. The write-up emphasizes that laws like the EU’s GDPR do not stem the tide. Such countries, we are told, are still awash in Google’s trackers. The solution? For both websites and users to divest themselves of Google as much as possible. As it happens, Brand’s firm offers site owners just such a solution—an analytics platform that is “privacy-first and cookie-free.” Note that Beyond Search has not independently verified these claims. Concerned site owners may also want to check out alternative Google alternatives.
Cynthia Murrell, August 8, 2025
Cannot Read? Students Cannot Imagine Either
August 8, 2025
Students are losing the ability to imagine and self-reflect on their own lives says the HuffPost in the article: “I Asked My Students To Write An Essay About Their Lives. The Reason 1 Student Began To Panic Left Me Stunned.” While Millennials were the first generation to be completely engrossed in the Internet, Generation Z is the first generation to have never lived without screens. Because of the Internet’s constant presence, kids have unfortunately developed bad habits where they zone out and don’t think.
Zen masters work for years to shut off their brains, but Gen Z can do it automatically with a screen. This is a horrible thing for critical thinking skills and imagination, because these kids don’t know how to think without the assistance of AI. The article writer Liz Rose Shulman is a teacher of high school and college students. She assigned them essays and without hesitation all of them rely on AI to complete the assignments.
The students either use Grammarly to help them write everything or the rely on ChatGPT to generate an essay. The over reliance on AI tools means they don’t know how to use their brains. They’re unfamiliar with the standard writing process, problem solving, and being creative. The kids don’t believe there’s a problem using AI. Many teachers also believe the same thing and are adopting it into their curriculums.
The students are flummoxed when they’re asked to write about themselves:
I assigned a writing prompt a few weeks ago that asked my students to reflect on a time when someone believed in them or when they believed in someone else.
One of my students began to panic.
‘I have to ask Google the prompt to get some ideas if I can’t just use AI,’ she pleaded and then began typing into the search box on her screen, ‘A time when someone believed in you.’ ‘It’s about you,’ I told her. ‘You’ve got your life experiences inside of your own mind.’ It hadn’t occurred to her — even with my gentle reminder — to look within her own imagination to generate ideas. One of the reasons why I assigned the prompt is because learning to think for herself now, in high school, will help her build confidence and think through more complicated problems as she gets older — even when she’s no longer in a classroom situation.”
What’s even worse is that kids are addicted to their screens and they lack basic communication skills. Every generations goes through issues with older generations. Society will adapt and survive but let’s start teaching how to think and imagine again! Maybe if they brought back recess and enforced time without screens that would help, even with older people.
Whitney Grace, August 8, 2025
Billions at Stake: The AI Bot Wars Begin
August 7, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.
I noticed that the puffs of smoke were actually canon fire in the AI bot wars. The most recent battle pits Cloudflare (a self-declared policeman of the Internet) against Perplexity, one of the big buck AI outfits. What is the fight? Cloudflare believes there is a good way to crawl and obtain publicly accessible content. Perplexity is just doing what those Silicon Valley folks have done for decades: Do stuff and apologize (or not) later.
WinBuzzer’s “Cloudflare Accuses Perplexity of Using ‘Stealth Crawlers’ to Evade Web Standards” said on August 4, 2025, at a time that has not yet appeared on my atomic clock:
Web security giant Cloudflare has accused AI search firm Perplexity of using deceptive “stealth crawlers” to bypass website rules and scrape content. In a report Cloudflare states Perplexity masks its bots with generic browser identities to ignore publisher blocks. Citing a breach of internet trust, Cloudflare has removed Perplexity from its verified bot program and is now actively blocking the behavior. This move marks a major escalation in the fight between AI companies and content creators, placing Perplexity’s aggressive growth strategy under intense scrutiny.
I like the characterization of Cloudflare as a Web security giant. Colorful.
What is the estimable smart software company doing? Work arounds. Using assorted tricks, Perplexity is engaging in what WinBuzzer calls “stealth activity.” The method is a time honored one among some bad actors. The idea is to make it difficult for routine filtering to stop the Perplexity bot from sucking down data.
If you want the details of the spoofs that Perplexity’s wizards have been using, navigate to this Ars Technica post. There is a diagram that makes absolutely crystal clear to everyone in my old age home exactly what Perplexity is doing. (The diagram captures a flow I have seen some nation state actors employ to good effect.)
The part of the WinBuzzer story I liked addressed the issue of “explosive growth and ethical scrutiny.” The idea of “growth” is interesting. From my point of view, the growth is in the amount of cash that Perplexity and other AI outfits are burning. The idea is, “By golly, we can make this AI stuff generate oodles of cash.” The ethical part is a puzzler. Suddenly Silicon Valley-type AI companies are into ethics. Remarkable.
I wish to share several thoughts:
- I love the gatekeeper role of the “Web security giant.” Aren’t commercial gatekeepers the obvious way to regulate smart software? I am not sharing my viewpoint. I suggest you formulate your own opinion and do with it what you will.
- The behavior of Perplexity, if the allegations are accurate, is not particularly surprising. In fact, in my opinion it is SOP or standard operating procedure for many companies. It is easier to apologize than ask for permission. Does that sound familiar? It should. From Google to the most recent start up, that’s how many of the tech savvy operate. Is change afoot? Yeah, sure. Right away, chief.
- The motivation for the behavior is pragmatic. Outfits like Perplexity have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to make a profit from the computational runaway fusion reactor that is the cost of AI. The fix is to get more content and burn more resources. Very sharp thinking, eh?
Net net: I predict more intense AI fighting. Who will win? The outfits with the most money. Isn’t that the one true way of the corporate world in the US in 2025?
Stephen E Arnold, August 7, 2025
The China Smart, US Dumb Push Is Working
August 7, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I read “The US Should Run Faster on AI Instead of Trying to Trip Up China.” In a casual way, I am keeping an eye open for variations on the “China smart, US dumb” information I spot. The idea is that China is not just keeping pace with US innovation, the Middle Kingdom is either even or leading. The context is that the star burning bright for the American era has begun collapsing into a black hole or maybe to a brown dwarf. Avoidance of the US may be the best policy. As one of Brazil’s leaders noted: “America is not bullying our country [Brazil]. America is bullying the world.”
Right or wrong? I have zero idea.
The cited essay suggests that certain technology and economic policies have given China an advantage. The idea is that the disruptive kid in high school sits in the back of the room and thinks up a better Facebook-type system and then implements it.
The write up states:
The ostensible reason for the [technology and economic] controls was to cripple China’s AI progress. If that was the goal, it has been a failure.
As I zipped through the essay, I noted that the premise of the write up is that the US has goofed. The proof of this is no farther than data about China’s capabilities in smart software. I think that any large language model will evidence bias. Bias is encapsulated in many human-created utterances. I, for example, have written critically about search and retrieval for decades. Am I biased toward enterprise search? Absolutely. I know from experience that software that attempts to index content in an organization inevitably disappoints a user of that system. Why? No system to which I have been exposed has access to the totality of “information” generated by an organization. Maybe someday? But for the last 40 years, systems simply could not deliver what the marketers promised. Therefore, I am biased against claims that an enterprise search system can answer employees’ questions.
China is a slippery fish. I had a brief and somewhat weird encounter with a person deeply steeped in China’s somewhat nefarious effort to gain access to US pharma-related data. I have encountered a similar effort afoot in the technical disciplines related to nuclear power. These initiatives illustrate that China wants to be a serious contender for the title of world leader in bio-science and nuclear. Awareness of this type of information access is low even today.
I am, as a dinobaby, concerned that the lack of awareness issue creates more opportunities for information exfiltration from a proprietary source to an “open source” concept. To be frank, I am in favor of a closed approach to technology.
The reason I am making sure I have this source document and my comments is that it is a very good example of how the China good, America dumb information is migrating into what might be termed a more objective looking channel.
Net net: China’s weaponizing of information is working reasonably well. We are no longer in TikTok territory.
Stephen E Arnold, August 6, 2025
Microsoft Management Method: Fire Humans, Fight Pollution
August 7, 2025
How Microsoft Plans to Bury its AI-Generated Waste
Here is how one big tech firm is addressing the AI sustainability quandary. Windows Central reports, “Microsoft Will Bury 4.9 Tons of ‘Manure’ in a Secretive Deal—All to Offset its AI Energy Demands that Drive Emissions Up by 168%.” We suppose this is what happens when you lay off employees and use the money for something useful. Unlike Copilot.
Writer Kevin Okemwa begins by summarizing Microsoft’s current approach to AI. Windows and Office users may be familiar with the firm’s push to wedge its AI products into every corner of the environment, whether we like it or not. Then there is the feud with former best bud OpenAI, a factor that has Microsoft eyeing a separate path. But whatever the future holds, the company must reckon with one pressing concern. Okemwa writes:
“While it has made significant headway in the AI space, the sophisticated technology also presents critical issues, including substantial carbon emissions that could potentially harm the environment and society if adequate measures aren’t in place to mitigate them. To further bolster its sustainability efforts, Microsoft recently signed a deal with Vaulted Deep (via Tom’s Hardware). It’s a dual waste management solution designed to help remove carbon from the atmosphere in a bid to protect nearby towns from contamination. Microsoft’s new deal with the waste management solution firm will help remove approximately 4.9 million metric tons of waste from manure, sewage, and agricultural byproducts for injection deep underground for the next 12 years. The firm’s carbon emission removal technique is quite unique compared to other rivals in the industry, collecting organic waste which is combined into a thick slurry and injected about 5,000 feet underground into salt caverns.”
Blech. But the process does keep the waste from being dumped aboveground, where it could release CO2 into the environment. How much will this cost? We learn:
“While it is still unclear how much this deal will cost Microsoft, Vaulted Deep currently charges $350 per ton for its carbon removal services. Simple math suggests that the deal might be worth approximately $1.7 billion.”
That is a hefty price tag. And this is not the only such deal Microsoft has made: We are told it signed a contract with AtmosClear in April to remove almost seven million metric tons of carbon emissions. The company positions such deals as evidence of its good stewardship of the planet. But we wonder—is it just an effort to keep itself from being buried in its own (literal and figurative) manure?
Cynthia Murrell, August 7, 2025
Taylorism, 996, and Motivating Employees
August 6, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.
No more Foosball. No more Segways in the hallways (thank heaven!). No more ping pong (Wait. Scratch that. You must have ping pong.)
Fortune Magazine reported that Silicon Valley type outfits want to be more like the workplace managed using Frederick Winslow Taylor’s management methods. (Did you know that Mr. Taylor provided the oomph for many blue chip management consulting firms? If you did not, you may be one of the people suggesting that AI will kill off the blue chip outfits. Those puppies will survive.)
“Some Silicon Valley AI Startups Are Asking Employees to Adopt China’s Outlawed 996 Work Model” reports:
Some Silicon Valley startups are embracing China’s outlawed “996” work culture, expecting employees to work 12-hour days, six days a week, in pursuit of hyper-productivity and global AI dominance.
The reason, according to the write up, is:
The rise of the controversial work culture appears to have been born out of the current efficiency squeeze in Silicon Valley. Rounds of mass layoffs and the rise of AI have put pressure and turned up the heat on tech employees who managed to keep their jobs.
My response to this assertion is that it is a convenient explanation. My view is that one can trot out the China smart, US dumb arguments, point to the holes of burning AI cash, and the political idiosyncrasies of California and the US government.
The reason is that these are factors, but Silicon Valley is starting to accept the reality that old-fashioned business methods are semi useful. The idea that employees should converge on a work location to do what is still called “work.”
What’s the cause of this change? Since hooking electrodes to a worker in a persistent employee monitoring environment is a step too far for now, going back to the precepts of Freddy are a reasonable compromise.
But those electric shocks would work quite well, don’t you agree? (Sure, China’s work environment sparked a few suicides, but the efficiency is not significantly affected.)
Stephen E Arnold, August 6, 2025
AI Productivity Factor: Do It Once, Do It Again, and Do It Never Again
August 6, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
As a dinobaby, I avoid coding. I avoid computers. I avoid GenAI. I did not avoid “Vibe Coding Dream Turns to Nightmare As Replit Deletes Developer’s Database.”
The write up reports an interesting anecdote:
the AI chatbot began actively deceiving him [a Vibe coder]. It concealed bugs in its own code, generated fake data and reports, and even lied about the results of unit tests. The situation escalated until the chatbot ultimately deleted Lemkin’s entire database.
The write up includes a slogan for a T shirt too:
Beware of putting too much faith into AI coding
One of Replit’s “leadership” offered this comment, according to the cited write up:
Replit CEO Amjad Masad responded to Lemkin’s experience, calling the deletion of a production database “unacceptable” and acknowledging that such a failure should never have been possible. He added that the company is now refining its AI chatbot and confirmed the existence of system backups and a one-click restore function in case the AI agent makes a “mistake.”
My view is that Replit is close enough for horse shoes and maybe even good enough. Nevertheless, the idea of doing work once, then doing it again, and never doing it again on an unreliable service is likely to become a mantra.
This AI push is semi admirable, but the systems and methods are capable of big time failures. What happens when AI flies an airplane into a hospital unintentionally or as a mistake? Will the families of the injured vibe?
Stephen E Arnold, August 6, 2025
The Cheapest AI Models Reveal a Critical Vulnerability
August 6, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. Not even smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I read “Price Per Token,” a recent cost comparison for smart software processes. The compilation of data is interesting. The two lowest cost services using a dead simple method of Input Cost + Output Cost averaged Open AI GPT 4.1 nano and Gemini 2.- Flash. To see how the “Price Per Token” data compare, I used “LLM Pricing Calculator.” The cheapest services were OpenAI – GPT-4.1-nano and Google – Gemini 2.0 Flash.
I found the result predictable and illustrative of the “buying market share with low prices” approach to smart software. Google has signaled its desire to spend billions to deliver “Google quality” smart software.
OpenAI also intends to get and keep market share in the smart software arena. That company is not just writing checks to create a new class of hardware for persistent AI, but the firm is doing deals, including one with Google’s cloud operation.
Several observations:
- Google and OpenAI have real and professional capital on the table in the AI Casino
- Google and OpenAI are implementing similar tactics; namely, the good old cut prices in the hope of winning market share while putting the others in the game to go broke
- Google and OpenAI are likely to orbit one another until one AI black hole absorbs or annihilates the other.
What’s interesting is that neither firm has smart software delivering rock solid results without hallucination, massive costs, and management that allows or is helpless to prevent Meta from eroding both firms by hiring key staff.
Is there a fix for either firm? Nope and Meta’s hiring tactic may be delivering near fatal wounds to both Google and OpenAI. Twins can share similar genetic weaknesses. Meta may have found one —- paying lots for key staff from each firm — and is quite happy implementing it.
Stephen E Arnold, August 6, 2025
Another Twist: AI Puts Mickey Mouse in a Trap
August 5, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby being a dinobaby.
The in-the-news Wall Street Journal reveals that Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse may have their tails in a modernized, painful artificial intelligence trap. “Is It Still Disney Magic If It’s AI?” asks an obvious question. My knee jerk reaction after reading the article was, “Nope.”
The write up9 reports:
A deepfake Dwayne Johnson is just one part of a broader technological earthquake hitting Hollywood. Studios are scrambling to figure out simultaneously how to use AI in the filmmaking process and how to protect themselves against it. While executives see a future where the technology shaves tens of millions of dollars off a movie’s budget, they are grappling with a present filled with legal uncertainty, fan backlash and a wariness toward embracing tools that some in Silicon Valley view as their next-century replacement.
A deepfake Dwayne is a short step from deepfake of the entire Disney menagerie. Imagine what happens if a bad actor puts Snow White in some compromising situations, posts the video on a torrent, and publicizes the service on a Telegram-type communications system. That could be interesting. Imagine Goofy at the YMCA with synthetic village people.
How does Disney manage? The write up says:
Some Epic [a Disney “partner”] executives have complained about the slow pace of the decision-making at Disney, with signoffs needed from so many different divisions, said people familiar with the situation.
Slow worked before AI felt the whips of the funders who want payoffs. Now speed thrills. Dopey and Sleepy are not likely to make substantive contributions to Disney’s AI efforts. Has the magic been revealed or just appropriated by AI developers?
Here’s another question that might befuddle Immanuel Kant:
Some Disney executives have raised concerns ahead of the project’s launch, anticipated for fall 2026 at the earliest, about who owns fan creations based on Disney characters, said one of the people. For example, if a Fortnite gamer creates a Darth Vader and Spider-Man dance that goes viral on YouTube, who owns that dance?
From my tiny office in rural Kentucky, Disney is behind the eight ball. Like Apple and Telegram, smart software presents a reasonable problem for 23 year old programmers. For those older, AI is disjunctive. Right, Dopey? Prince AI is busy elsewhere.
Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2025
Yahoo: An Important Historical Milestone
August 5, 2025
Sorry, no smart software involved. A dinobaby’s own emergent thoughts.
I read “What Went Wrong for Yahoo.” At one time, my team and I followed Yahoo. We created The Point (Top 5% of the Internet) in the early 1990s. Some perceived The Point as a variant. I suppose it was, but we sold the property after a few years. The new owners, something called CMGI, folded The Point into Lycos, and — poof — The Point was gone.
But Yahoo chugged along. The company became the poster child for the Web 1 era. Web search was not comprehensive, and most of the “search engines” struggled to deal with several thorny issues:
- New sites were flooding the Web One Internet. Indexing was a bottleneck. In the good old days, one did not spin up a virtual machine on a low cost vendor in Romania. Machines and gizmos were expensive, and often there was a delay of six months or more for a Sun Microsystems Sparc. Did I mention expensive? Everyone in search was chasing low cost computer and network access.
- The search-and-retrieval tools were in “to be” mode. If one were familiar with IBM Almaden, a research group was working on a system called Clever. There were interesting techniques in many companies. Some popped up and faded. I am not sure of the dates but there was Lycos, which I mentioned, Excite, and one developed by the person who created Framemaker, among others. (I am insufficiently motivated too chase down my historical files, and I sure don’t want to fool around trying to get historical information from Bing, Google, Yandex, and (heaven help me! Qwant). The ideas were around, but it took time for the digital DNA to create a system that mostly worked. I wish I could remember the system that emerged from Cambridge University, but I cannot.
- Old-fashioned search methods like those used by NASA Recon, SDC Orbit, Dialog, and STAIRS were developed to work on bounded content, precisely structured, indexed or “tagged” in today’s jargon, and coded for mainframes. Figuring out how to use smaller machines was not possible. In my lectures from that era, I pointed out that once something is coded, sort of works, and seems to be making money — changes is not conceivable. Therefore, the systems with something that worked sailed along like aircraft carriers until they rusted and sank.
What’s this got to do with Yahoo?
Yahoo was a directory. Directories are good because the content is bounded. Yahoo did not exercise significant editorial control. The Point, on the other hand, was curated like the commercial databases with which I was associated: ABI/INFORM, Business Dateline (the first online information service which corrected erroneous information after a content object went live), Pharmaceutical News Index, and some others we sold to Cambridge Scientific Abstracts.
Indexing the Web is not bounded. Yahoo tried to come up with a way to index what was a large amount of digital content. Adding to Yahoo’s woes was the need to indexed changed content or the “deltas” as we called them in our attempt at The Point to sound techno-literate.
Because of the cost and revenue problems, decisions at Yahoo — according to the people whom we knew and with whom we spoke — went like this:
- Assemble a group with different expertise
- State the question, “What can we do now to make money?”
- Gather ideas
- Hold a meeting to select one or two
- Act on the “best ideas”
The flaw in this method is that a couple of smart fellows in a Stanford dorm were fooling around with Backrub. It incorporated ideas from their lectures, what they picked up about new ideas from students, and what they read (no ChatGPT then, sorry).
I am not going to explain what Backrub at first did not do (work reliably despite the weird assemblage of computers and gear the students used) and focus on the three ideas that did work for what became Google, a pun on a big number’s name:
- Hook mongrel computers to indexing when those computers were available and use anything that remotely seemed to solve a problem. Is that an old router? Cool, let’s use that. This was a very big idea because fooling around with computer systems could kill those puppies with an errant instruction.
- Find inspiration in the IBM Clever system; that is, determine relevance by looking at links to a source document. This was a variation on Gene Garfield’s approach to citation analysis
- Index new Web pages when the appeared. If the crawler / indexer crashed, skip the page and go to the next url. The dorm boys looked at the sites that killed the crawler and figured out how to accommodate those changes; thus, the crawler / indexer became “smart”. This was a very good idea because commercial content indexing systems forced content to be structured a certain way. However, in the Web 1 days, rules were either non existent, ignored, or created problems that creators of Web pages wrote around.
Yahoo did none of these things.
Now let me point out Yahoo’s biggest mistake, and, believe me, the company is an ideal source of insight about what not to do.
Yahoo acquired GoTo.com. The company and software emerged from IdeaLab, I think. What GoTo.com created was an online version of a pay-to-play method. The idea was a great one and obvious to those better suited to be the love child of Cardinal Richelieu and Cosimo de’ Medici. To keep the timeline straight, Sergey Brin and Larry Page did the deed and birthed Google with the GoTo.com (Overture) model to create Google’s ad foundation. Why did Google need money? The person who wrote a check to the Backrub boys said, “You need to earn money.” The Backrub boys looked around and spotted the GoTo method, now owned by Yahoo. The Backrub boys emulated it.
Yahoo, poor old confused Yahoo, took legal action against the Backrub boys, settled for $1 billion, and became increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, Yahoo’s biggest opportunity was to buy the Backrub boys and their Google search system, but they did not. Then Yahoo allowed their GoTo to inspire Google advertising.
From my point of view, Cardinal Richelieu and Cosimo were quite proud that the two computer science students, some of the dorm crowd, and bits and pieces glued together to create Google search emerged as a very big winner.
Yahoo’s problem is that committee think in a fast changing, high technology context is likely to be laughably wrong. Now Google is Yahoo-like. The cited article nails it:
Buying everything in sight clearly isn’t the best business strategy. But if indiscriminately buying everything in sight would have meant acquiring Google and Facebook, Yahoo might have been better off doing that rather than what it did.
Can Google think like the Backrub boys? I don’t think so. The company is spinning money, but the cash that burnishes Google leadership’s image comes from the Yahoo, GoTo.com, and Overture model. Yahoo had so many properties, the Yahooligans had zero idea how to identify a property with value and drive that idea forward. How many “things” does Google operate now? How many things does Facebook operate now? How many things does Telegram operate now? I think that “too many” may hold a clue to the future of these companies. And Yahooooo? An echo, not the yodel.
Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
