[heavenlyhash]

I find it very interesting that the comments here on HN so far are predominated by discussion of "privacy".

The article is about anti-trust regulation.

These are different things.

Regardless of what you might think about the privacy of any particular option today, the point of this change is to make sure more choice is available and visible to users. In the long run, it's worth remembering that such choice might be a prerequisite for more privacy-oriented services to have a chance to grow. This is the case even if you don't regard any of the current options highly.

[OJFord]

But they're both about choice, and the usual reason people make DDG their choice is privacy from Google.

[heavenlyhash]

Sure, but grep the fine original article for the word "privacy".

It's not present.

HN is discussing HN's tangentially-related feelings more than HN is discussing the article. I'm not surprised, but I'm certainly frustrated: in addition to being navel-gazing, in this situation it's also substantially missing the main reasons this is good: a regulatory agency is actually doing Reasonable Things -- things any privacy advocate should probably be pleased with -- but not just are they doing Reasonable Things, they're them in a relatively subtle, non-prescriptive way that actually keeps the options open for further future improvement. This is great; DDG is an incidental detail.