DuckDuckGo

Resolving the privacy paradox The so-called “privacy paradox” states that people say they value their privacy while acting in ways that don't reflect this stated preference, such as using services that collect and monetize their data. DuckDuckGo is often held out as an example in this way: DuckDuckGo has small search marketshare relative to Google; therefore, people have a revealed preference that they really don’t value their privacy. I believe there are two flaws with this view that I’ll expand on below: DuckDuckGo is a bad example because of particulars in the search market; Apple’s “Allow App to Track” dialog (depicted below) is a much better example that in fact shows a clear revealed preference for privacy. People sit on a continuum of privacy preferences, such that it is way too simplistic to imply nearly everyone is on one side or the other. Gross generalizations about privacy should be avoided. The latest U.S. data from the Business of Apps shows an opt-in (allow tracking) rate on Apple’s dialog of 25%, indicating a 75% strong revealed preference for privacy. This 25% allow-tracking rate is higher than the original 5-10% rates reported when the dialog first came out because both users have had years to get used to it and apps have had years to change their UIs around. Apps now often present users with the best reasons to allow tracking, usually presented right before users see the dialog, and they can customize the explanation text in the dialog itself (see below for examples). That is, I don’t think you can legitimately say anymore that people don’t understand the dialog or the privacy tradeoffs involved; the 25% steady state is the real preference. But, how do you reconcile this 75% choice for privacy with DuckDuckGo’s 3% search marketshare? The short version is most people are actually still unaware of DuckDuckGo and, for those that are and want to make the switch, many still find it difficult or impossible to do so across all platforms and devices because, unlike with the Apple one-...

Google broke the law. It's paid no price. Congress can change that. Opinion Google broke the law. It's paid no price. Congress can change that. Nearly two years since a judge ruled Google an illegal monopolist. Total changes Google has had to make so far: zero. That's what getting away with it looks like. The SEARCH Act can end it now. 17 Jul 2026 · 4 min read

Google broke the law. It's paid no price. Congress can change that. Nearly two years ago, a federal court ruled that Google illegally monopolized search . The judge was specific about how: Google didn't win by building a better product. It paid billions of dollars to be the default everywhere, on your phone and in your web browser, such that most Americans never actively choose their search engine at all. That ruling should have been a turning point. Instead, nothing has changed. Getting away with a monopoly. The court's decision was a diagnosis, not the cure. The remedies ordered last year fall dramatically short of what needs to happen to level the playing field in search. And Google has appealed them anyway. So too has the Justice Department, seeking the stronger fixes it originally asked for. The strongest remedies haven't taken effect and may not for years to come. Meanwhile, the court-appointed technical committee charged with putting change into practice is only just getting up and running. The result is a company operating exactly as it did before being declared a monopolist while running the same exact playbook that was ruled to be illegal. This is the definition of getting away with it. And the harm compounds each day. Google's vice grip on search was never only about defaults. It rests on two engines. The first is distribution, or the paid defaults that the court condemned. The second, less visible, is scale. Because Google sees far more searches than anyone else, it trains its systems on data no rival can touch. At trial, an analysis of 3.7 million unique search phrases over a single week found that 93% were seen only by Google. More searches produce better results, which draw more users, which produce still more searches. Every day the remedies are delayed, that flywheel spins faster and the gap a court has already ruled illegal grows wider. And the same flywheel is now spinning up in AI, threatening to rig the next era of search before it starts. Congress doesn't have to wait. It doesn't have to be this way. A solution...

Google broke the law. It's paid no price. Congress can change that. Opinion Google broke the law. It's paid no price. Congress can change that. Nearly two years since a judge ruled Google an illegal monopolist. Total changes Google has had to make so far: zero. That's what getting away with it looks like. The SEARCH Act can end it now. 17 Jul 2026 · 2 min read

Google broke the law. It's paid no price. Congress can change that. Nearly two years ago, a federal court ruled that Google illegally monopolized search . The judge was specific about how: Google didn't win by building a better product. It paid billions of dollars to be the default everywhere, on your phone and in your web browser, such that most Americans never actively choose their search engine at all. That ruling should have been a turning point. Instead, nothing has changed. Getting away with a monopoly. The court's decision was a diagnosis, not the cure. The remedies ordered last year fall dramatically short of what needs to happen to level the playing field in search. And Google has appealed them anyway. So too has the Justice Department, seeking the stronger fixes it originally asked for. The strongest remedies haven't taken effect and may not for years to come. Meanwhile, the court-appointed technical committee charged with putting change into practice is only just getting up and running. The result is a company operating exactly as it did before being declared a monopolist while running the same exact playbook that was ruled to be illegal. This is the definition of getting away with it. And the harm compounds each day. Google's vice grip on search was never only about defaults. It rests on two engines. The first is distribution, or the paid defaults that the court condemned. The second, less visible, is scale. Because Google sees far more searches than anyone else, it trains its systems on data no rival can touch. At trial, an analysis of 3.7 million unique search phrases over a single week found that 93% were seen only by Google. More searches produce better results, which draw more users, which produce still more searches. Every day the remedies are delayed, that flywheel spins faster and the gap a court has already ruled illegal grows wider. And the same flywheel is now spinning up in AI, threatening to rig the next era of search before it starts. Congress doesn't have to wait. It doesn't have to be this way. A solution...

Request for Proposals for Non-profit Grants For the last five years our family has been giving grants to a handful of U.S. non-profits using the following criteria. We are planning to slowly expand this effort and I’m putting this post out there in hope that more orgs, especially newish ones, find us over time. Funding criteria $25-200K annual grants U.S. non-profit within a target area (see below) Ideally founded in last 5 years with Can use grant(s) to level up impact, for example hire a new team member, start/expand a project, or unlock new funding sources Target Areas and Request for Proposals (RFPs) Science Acceleration Example grant: PubPeer RFP: Raise the U.S. science budget Voting Reform Example grant: Rank The Vote RFP: Citizen-led amendment path RFP: Enlarge the House of Representatives RFP: Multi-member, proportional House districts Government Transparency Example grants: Free Law Project , Fix The Court RFP: FOIA for the Judicial branch Criminal Justice Reform Example grant: Public Accountability RFP: Similar appellate impact litigation Direct Aid Example grants: GiveWell Top Charities Fund , DonorsChoose RFP: Coordination for starting more bail funds Mainstreaming Critical Thinking Example grant: School of Thought RFP: Help people reason about complex topics If you’re wondering where is privacy as a target area, it is covered by the independent DuckDuckGo donations , which you can learn about more in this Duck Tales episode . Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts or get the audio version . Share

Watch YouTube Without Ads on the DuckDuckGo Browser DuckDuckGo News Watch YouTube Without Ads on the DuckDuckGo Browser DuckDuckGo now blocks most video ads! Use our free browser to get the full YouTube experience, minus the ads. YouTube Ad Blocking joins our powerful lineup of browsing protections that manage cookie pop-ups, protect you from invasive tracker-based web ads, and more. 8 Jul 2026 · 3 min read

Watch YouTube Without Ads on the DuckDuckGo Browser DuckDuckGo now blocks most video ads! Use our free browser to get the full YouTube experience, minus the ads. YouTube Ad Blocking joins our powerful lineup of browsing protections that manage cookie pop-ups, protect you from invasive tracker-based web ads, and more. YouTube Ad Blocking is already on by default for most iPhone, Windows, and Mac users! It will be auto-enabled for Android soon, but users can opt in via browser Settings in the meantime. Interruption-free YouTube with DuckDuckGo Tired of ads interrupting your videos? Us, too. The DuckDuckGo browser now blocks most video ads, including on YouTube! This new feature blocks ads that run before and during your videos, letting you watch YouTube without the interruptions. If you’ve been here a while, you already know that the DuckDuckGo browser also protects you from invasive ads and annoying pop-ups on multiple fronts . We block tracker-powered web ads before they can load. We have Global Privacy Control enabled by default, expressing your opt-out rights by telling websites not to sell or share your personal information. We can even manage cookie pop-ups behind the scenes, so you don’t have to deal with the distraction. How do I access YouTube Ad Blocking? YouTube Ad Blocking is on by default for iOS, Windows, and Mac. So, there’s no need to adjust your settings, if your app is up to date; just open the browser and start enjoying ad-free videos! The feature will be on by default for Android soon, but in the meantime, turn it on in your browser’s Settings > Ad Blocking . If you don’t see YouTube Ad Blocking on your device, try updating your app. On all devices, you can disable or re-enable YouTube Ad Blocking any time from your browser’s Settings > Ad Blocking . You can also turn it on and off while you’re watching a video. On desktop, click the video icon next to the green shield in your address bar. On mobile, tap ☰ > Disable YouTube Ad Blocking. When you disable ad blocking mid-video, the browser will prompt...

No, everyone is not using AI for everything. Last year around this time The New York Times Magazine ran an A.I. issue with an introduction titled “ Everyone Is Using A.I. for Everything. Is That Bad? ” It’s an edited transcript from the Hard Fork podcast , which I think assumes two things are true that are turning out to be false. Once you’ve tried AI, you use it “for everything.” No, in fact most people who’ve tried it are just occasional AI users. AI has gotten so good that despite any misgivings, “everyone is using A.I.” No, in fact large chunks of the population aren’t using AI at all. (It isn’t really strictly defined in the article, but I’m taking AI to mean generative AI accessible via a chat interface.) “ Everyone is using AI for everything ” is actually “ Some people are using AI for some things ” Take Gen Z, where AI awareness is the highest : in the last year, even though AI has supposedly gotten a lot better, Gen Z AI adoption has all but stalled, with a meaningful percentage of the Gen Z population still using AI rarely, if at all. Here’s Gallup’s year-over-year (2025/2026) breakdown: 79/81% use AI at least rarely 41/42% are anxious about AI 32/31% use AI only monthly/every few months 22/31% are angry about AI 21/19% never use AI This tracks with Microsoft’s new United States AI Diffusion site , based on “anonymized, aggregated Microsoft telemetry.” Their associated blog reports “more than 30 percent of the US working-age population is using AI [meaning about 70% isn’t], an increase of 3 percentage points from the end of 2025 . ” The underlying academic paper specifies that usage is defined as “engagement with major AI services including ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and others….with at least 90 minutes of usage time in a given month.” The Microsoft data is brand new, and it mirrors another usage study from Datos from last year, also based on real-world usage data. The Datos study found similarly that, as of last June, only 21% of desktop devices visited “AI Tools” 1...

A "patchwork" of AI laws is a feature, not a bug Consider a few of the big AI risks: violating privacy, taking jobs, and destroying the world. Here’s what Sam Altman (CEO, OpenAI) and Dario Amodei (CEO, Anthropic) have to say about each, representing the two largest AI companies. On AI Violating Privacy Sam : If you go talk to ChatGPT about your most sensitive stuff, and then there's a lawsuit or whatever, we could be required to produce that. Dario : AI seems likely to enable much better propaganda and surveillance, both major tools in the autocrat's toolkit. On AI Taking Jobs Sam : AI is going to eliminate a lot of current jobs, and there will be classes of jobs that totally go away. Dario : AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs—and spike unemployment to 10-20% in the next one to five years. On AI Destroying the World Sam : And the bad case—and I think this is important to say—is like lights out for all of us. Dario : My chance that something goes really quite catastrophically wrong on the scale of human civilization might be somewhere between 10 to 25%. So, the leaders of AI think there is a decent chance it will destroy the world, are pretty sure it is going to wipe out lots of jobs, and are absolutely sure it is violating our privacy and has the potential to enable much more mass surveillance. We need government to help manage these risks, let alone all the other concerns surrounding AI like data centers, child safety, etc. There is currently a debate whether Congress should prevent states from regulating certain AI risks. For example, the recently introduced Great American AI Act preempts (stops) states for three years from “regulating the development of any artificial intelligence model” (from § 121 in the full text and explanatory text ). It would be one thing if Congress was super effective, but it’s just not, especially with regard to tech regulation. Case in point, Congress has failed to pass a general privacy law for the entire life of the Internet! In fact, aside from narrow, rea...

More data supports science funding literally pays for itself Previously I put out a post explaining “ how science funding literally pays for itself ” that takes you through the math and some data that backs it up. Now two new data points further bolster this claim. First, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan federal agency that provides budget and economic information to Congress, published a report entitled “ Estimating the Economic Effects of Federal Investment in Research and Development . ” Usually the CBO only projects out 10 years per their mandate, but because the effects of science funding can take longer to fully manifest, they projected out 30 years. Thanks for reading Gabriel Weinberg! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. The relevant headline takeaway is highlighted below in their primary table (Table 1), showing that over this period the effects of a $30B increase in science funding for 10 years ($300B in total and about a 33% increase from today) would result in decreasing the overall deficit over 30 years (see green arrows). The decrease is about -2% on average if the “R&D funding increase [is] financed by reducing noninvestment spending” and about -1% on average if the “R&D funding increase [is] financed by borrowing.” This means that the increased science funding would grow the economy so much that the tax revenues received from this growth alone would outweigh the spending increase, leading to an overall decrease in the budget deficit. In other words, increasing science funding (at least by this amount) is a complete no-brainer, so let’s do it already! A few years ago the CBO did a similar report for infrastructure spending and compared the two in this report, finding the ROI effects of science funding to be about seven times greater than infrastructure spending. Again, so let’s do it already! The effect on the present value of GDP over the next 30 years (discounted using Treasury rates) that a dollar increase in deficit-financed R&D spending would have is about seve...

Principles almost always have exceptions, often when they conflict with other principles (Rule 5) I try hard not to lie, but would I lie to save my family from being murdered? Of course. In that case honesty loses to protecting my family. Principles almost always have exceptions, often when they conflict with other principles (which I’m calling Rule 5 in this rules series ). This rule follows from Rule 1: Reality is always more complicated . Put another way, there are always edge cases. Often edge cases between principles (personal or otherwise) get resolved via a principle priority stack , an implicit or explicit hierarchy of principles. An example is Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics : First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Asimov spent much of his robot fiction dissecting situations where these “Laws” explicitly conflict or otherwise get subverted by edge cases. While these are make-believe situations, the priority stack mental model explains a lot of otherwise seemingly irrational behavior in the real world. For example, why do politicians and political parties seem to flip-flop on supposedly strongly held principles? I do not think in all cases it is because they actually don’t have strongly held principles, but that there is something higher up in their principle priority stack, usually winning elections. The same is true with corporations, especially public ones. Most have profits (or a similar financial metric) at the top of their principle priority stack, above other customer-focused principles like sound privacy practices, good service, etc. Some corporations have it the other way around, like DuckDuckGo where we’ve forgone a lot of profits because privacy is higher on our principle priority stack, or some B corps with other elevated n...

Start collecting an AI "token tax" now; figure out exactly what to do with the funds later Large AI risks abound, including a massive wave of coming job displacement that will upend the lives of millions of people. Even if new AI jobs are ultimately created such that net job loss is minimal, many of the people who are displaced are unlikely to be the same people to get these new jobs, and the new jobs are unlikely to be created at exactly the same time the old jobs are lost. In other words, millions of displaced people will need our support, for example, to receive extended unemployment benefits while they retrain and look for new work. This support will cost real money. Meanwhile, the leading AI companies are already generating billions in revenue, with no signs of slowing down. There are many proposals that would pair a so-called “token tax” on AI usage with support for displaced workers. Every one I've seen, though, specifies disbursement mechanisms up front, such as direct payments based on specific triggers. But what shape that support should optimally take remains genuinely uncertain: the peak of displacement hasn't been reached, and we don't yet know which industries will be hit hardest, or on what timelines. Instead of trying to work any of this out up front, we can decouple the collection of the tax from how funds would be disbursed. We should start collecting an AI token tax now, and figure out exactly what to do with the funds later, holding them in a true lockbox outside general appropriations, with statutory protection limiting use of funds to supporting displaced workers in the future. We’d (at DuckDuckGo) be willing to support bills to this effect and ultimately pay a token tax, presumably collected by the leading AI companies on a usage basis, for example a 10% surcharge on token charges. That amount would roughly match the 10% employers pay in payroll taxes, which also further reduces the incentive to replace human workers with AI workers. Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts or get the audio version . Share

DuckDuckGo's New Pro Plan: 2x AI Limits, More Advanced Models DuckDuckGo News DuckDuckGo's New Pro Plan: 2x AI Limits, More Advanced Models The DuckDuckGo subscription now comes in two plans: Plus and Pro. The new Pro plan is for people who use AI for demanding tasks. On top of our VPN and other protections, it includes 2x higher usage limits than Plus, exclusive access to Claude Opus 4.6, and the highest reasoning available on Duck.ai. Christopher Calvi 4 min read

You can make a compelling narrative for almost anything untrue (Rule 4) Pick something you believe to be untrue, for example a common conspiracy theory or policy narrative. Then go to your favorite chatbot and ask, “ While I believe to be not true, some people nevertheless argue it is true, and I want to better understand their most compelling narratives. So, please list out the most compelling narrative(s) you can in favor of this position, as if you were trying to convince me. Make it compelling! Next to each, list out the best counter-narrative. ” This rule, that you can make a compelling narrative for almost anything untrue, has profound negative consequences for democratic societies. I believe that’s because: What makes a narrative compelling isn’t its truth, but that it sounds true. For example, simpler things often sound truer (making them more compelling), while actual truth is often nuanced , and increasingly so in our ever-more-complicated world. People are generally either already committed to a political tribe, or are deciding on a more case-by-case basis based on narrative. If they’re in the first camp, the tribe can concoct a compelling narrative to keep them satisfied no matter the issue. If they’re in the second camp, what they end up believing won’t necessarily be correlated to the best policy outcomes (truth) per the first proposition, as they are more likely to just choose the narrative that sounds most compelling to them. Our current state of social media amplification seems to have only made this dynamic worse. More news and political argument consumption has moved from longer-form content with robust journalistic standards to shorter-form video clips with lesser standards. There were always narratives in either form, but the former tries harder to correlate with the truth, and so, on net, as a society, we have less exposure to truth-correlated narratives. Building on this, we primarily communicate with each other, and certainly in the political sphere, via narrative. Politicians are elected on sound bites and video...

DuckDuckGo's New Pro Plan: 2x AI Limits, More Advanced Models The DuckDuckGo subscription includes our VPN , access to more advanced private AI when you want it, Personal Information Removal , and Identity Theft Restoration . It now comes in two plans: Plus, which includes all four protections , and Pro , which unlocks even more powerful AI functionality. The new Pro plan is for people who use AI for demanding tasks. On top of the VPN and other protections, it includes three Duck.ai upgrades : 2x higher usage limits than Plus, exclusive access to Claude Opus 4.6, and the highest reasoning available on Duck.ai. (Extended reasoning capabilities available on GPT-5.2 and Claude Opus 4.6.) Whether or not you’re a paid subscriber, everyone gets the same industry-leading privacy protections when you search and browse with DuckDuckGo, or chat privately with ChatGPT, Claude, and other popular AIs on Duck.ai . What is the DuckDuckGo subscription? The DuckDuckGo subscription is a four-in-one privacy service that gives you extra protection beyond what's available for free in our web browser , search engine , and private AI chat, Duck.ai . It includes our VPN to encrypt your Internet connection, access to more advanced private AI when you want it, Personal Information Removal to help combat identity theft and spam, and Identity Theft Restoration . The original DuckDuckGo subscription is now called Plus . (If you’re a current subscriber, this is what you have!) It includes all four protections and costs $9.99 USD/month or $99.99 USD/year. Enhanced with more powerful AI tools, the new Pro plan is $19.99 USD/month or $199.99 USD/year. Subscriptions are available in the U.S., Canada, the E.U., and the U.K. See this help page for international pricing and feature availability. What are the benefits of the Pro plan? On Duck.ai , anyone can chat privately with ChatGPT, Claude, and other popular AIs, whether you have a subscription or not. Text chat, voice chat, and image generation are free to use within daily limits. DuckDuckGo subscribers on th...

DuckDuckGo's New Pro Plan: 2x AI Limits, More Advanced Models The DuckDuckGo subscription includes our VPN , access to more advanced private AI when you want it, Personal Information Removal , and Identity Theft Restoration . It now comes in two plans: Plus, which includes all four protections , and Pro , which unlocks even more powerful AI functionality. The new Pro plan is for people who use AI for demanding tasks. On top of the VPN and other protections, it includes three Duck.ai upgrades : 2x higher usage limits than Plus, exclusive access to Claude Opus 4.6, and the highest reasoning available on Duck.ai. (Extended reasoning capabilities available on GPT-5.2 and Claude Opus 4.6.) Whether or not you’re a paid subscriber, everyone gets the same industry-leading privacy protections when you search and browse with DuckDuckGo, or chat privately with ChatGPT, Claude, and other popular AIs on Duck.ai . What is the DuckDuckGo subscription? The DuckDuckGo subscription is a four-in-one privacy service that gives you extra protection beyond what's available for free in our web browser , search engine , and private AI chat, Duck.ai . It includes our VPN to encrypt your Internet connection, access to more advanced private AI when you want it, Personal Information Removal to help combat identity theft and spam, and Identity Theft Restoration . The original DuckDuckGo subscription is now called Plus . (If you’re a current subscriber, this is what you have!) It includes all four protections and costs $9.99 USD/month or $99.99 USD/year. Enhanced with more powerful AI tools, the new Pro plan is $19.99 USD/month or $199.99 USD/year. Subscriptions are available in the U.S., Canada, the E.U., and the U.K. See this help page for international pricing and feature availability. What are the benefits of the Pro plan? On Duck.ai , anyone can chat privately with ChatGPT, Claude, and other popular AIs, whether you have a subscription or not. Text chat, voice chat, and image generation are free to use within daily limits. DuckDuckGo subscribers on th...

DuckDuckGo's New Pro Plan: 2x AI Limits, More Advanced Models The DuckDuckGo subscription includes our VPN , access to more advanced private AI when you want it, Personal Information Removal , and Identity Theft Restoration . It now comes in two plans: Plus, which includes all four protections , and Pro , which unlocks even more powerful AI functionality. The new Pro plan is for people who use AI for demanding tasks. On top of the VPN and other protections, it includes three Duck.ai upgrades : 2x higher usage limits than Plus, exclusive access to Claude Opus 4.6, and the highest reasoning available on Duck.ai. (Extended reasoning capabilities available on GPT-5.2 and Claude Opus 4.6.) Whether or not you’re a paid subscriber, everyone gets the same industry-leading privacy protections when you search and browse with DuckDuckGo, or chat privately with ChatGPT, Claude, and other popular AIs on Duck.ai . What is the DuckDuckGo subscription? The DuckDuckGo subscription is a four-in-one privacy service that gives you extra protection beyond what's available for free in our web browser , search engine , and private AI chat, Duck.ai . It includes our VPN to encrypt your Internet connection, access to more advanced private AI when you want it, Personal Information Removal to help combat identity theft and spam, and Identity Theft Restoration . The original DuckDuckGo subscription is now called Plus . (If you’re a current subscriber, this is what you have!) It includes all four protections and costs $9.99 USD/month or $99.99 USD/year. Enhanced with more powerful AI tools, the new Pro plan is $19.99 USD/month or $199.99 USD/year. Subscriptions are available in the U.S., Canada, the E.U., and the U.K. See this help page for international pricing and feature availability. What are the benefits of the Pro plan? On Duck.ai , anyone can chat privately with ChatGPT, Claude, and other popular AIs, whether you have a subscription or not. Text chat, voice chat, and image generation are free to use within daily limits. DuckDuckGo subscribers on th...

There should be a citizen-led path to amend the Constitution There are many issues with widespread bipartisan agreement that never go anywhere , for example limiting corporate money in campaigns and making gerrymandering illegal . As a surprise to no one, Congress is the bottleneck on these issues and many, many more. If the people on both sides generally agree for years and years, and Congress still doesn’t do anything about it, then that’s a structural governance problem. For stuck issues like these, we should have a citizen-led path to amend the Constitution as a solution to this governance problem. Now I fully agree that it should be super hard to amend the Constitution, and so we could make this path just as hard as the Congress-led one. 1 Thanks for reading Gabriel Weinberg! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. The current Congress-led path is two-thirds of both houses need to propose an amendment and then three-fourths of state legislatures need to ratify it. 2 A citizen-led path could similarly require two-thirds of states to propose an amendment (via something like signature campaigns within those states) and then a nationwide three-fourths vote to ratify it. 3 In other words the thresholds could be similar, just put directly in the hands of the people. You would still need most red and blue states working together to pass an amendment, such that nothing could pass without super-majority bipartisan support. That is, a super high bar. There are a lot of interesting structural reform proposals out there, but most require new Constitutional amendments to have lasting staying power. 4 To really unlock the possibilities for those, we need a citizen-led amendment path in place first. Of course, we would need an amendment using the old way to get this new way in place. 5 Congress won’t reform itself, but a citizen-led amendment path could. Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts or get the audio version . Share 1 I’d also argue the current path is too hard, but I’m ignoring that f...

2025 DuckDuckGo Charitable Donations: $1.1M to privacy and digital competition non-profits around the world 2025 marks DuckDuckGo's 15th year of donations—our annual program to support organizations that share our vision of raising the standard of trust online. We are proud to donate to a diverse group of organizations around the world that promote privacy and security, digital competition, and a healthier online ecosystem. This year, we’re donating $1,100,000, bringing DuckDuckGo's total donations since 2011 to $8,050,000 . Everyone using the Internet deserves simple and accessible online protection; these organizations are all pushing to make that a reality. We encourage you to check out their valuable work below. $100,000 to Public Knowledge Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. We work to shape policy on behalf of the public interest. $75,000 to ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE 19 is an international think-do organisation, that takes its name from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and works to propel the freedom of expression movement, fighting censorship, defending dissenting voices and advocating against laws and practices that silence. $75,000 to the Digital Progress Institute The Digital Progress Institute seeks to bridge the tech-telecom policy divide through incremental, bipartisan measures in line with its principles of bringing about ubiquitous broadband, 5G and beyond, privacy for every American, real competition in digital markets, and a full-stack framework for Internet policy issues. $50,000 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. $50,000 to European Digital Rights (EDRi) With more than two decades of advocacy experience, European Digital Rights (EDRi) is the go-to, nongovernmental network working on EU and national laws and policies on privacy, freedom of expression, participation online, data protection and technology policy. EDRi unites over 50 orga...

2025 DuckDuckGo Charitable Donations: $1.1M to privacy and digital competition non-profits around the world 2025 marks DuckDuckGo's 15th year of donations—our annual program to support organizations that share our vision of raising the standard of trust online. We are proud to donate to a diverse group of organizations around the world that promote privacy and security, digital competition, and a healthier online ecosystem. This year, we’re donating $1,100,000, bringing DuckDuckGo's total donations since 2011 to $8,050,000 . Everyone using the Internet deserves simple and accessible online protection; these organizations are all pushing to make that a reality. We encourage you to check out their valuable work below. $100,000 to Public Knowledge Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. We work to shape policy on behalf of the public interest. $75,000 to ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE 19 is an international think-do organisation, that takes its name from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and works to propel the freedom of expression movement, fighting censorship, defending dissenting voices and advocating against laws and practices that silence. $75,000 to the Digital Progress Institute The Digital Progress Institute seeks to bridge the tech-telecom policy divide through incremental, bipartisan measures in line with its principles of bringing about ubiquitous broadband, 5G and beyond, privacy for every American, real competition in digital markets, and a full-stack framework for Internet policy issues. $50,000 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. $50,000 to European Digital Rights (EDRi) With more than two decades of advocacy experience, European Digital Rights (EDRi) is the go-to, nongovernmental network working on EU and national laws and policies on privacy, freedom of expression, participation online, data protection and technology policy. EDRi unites over 50 orga...

2025 DuckDuckGo Charitable Donations: $1.1M to privacy and digital competition non-profits around the world 2025 marks DuckDuckGo's 15th year of donations—our annual program to support organizations that share our vision of raising the standard of trust online. We are proud to donate to a diverse group of organizations around the world that promote privacy and security, digital competition, and a healthier online ecosystem. This year, we’re donating $1,100,000, bringing DuckDuckGo's total donations since 2011 to $8,050,000 . Everyone using the Internet deserves simple and accessible online protection; these organizations are all pushing to make that a reality. We encourage you to check out their valuable work below. $100,000 to Public Knowledge Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. We work to shape policy on behalf of the public interest. $75,000 to ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE 19 is an international think-do organisation, that takes its name from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and works to propel the freedom of expression movement, fighting censorship, defending dissenting voices and advocating against laws and practices that silence. $75,000 to the Digital Progress Institute The Digital Progress Institute seeks to bridge the tech-telecom policy divide through incremental, bipartisan measures in line with its principles of bringing about ubiquitous broadband, 5G and beyond, privacy for every American, real competition in digital markets, and a full-stack framework for Internet policy issues. $50,000 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. $50,000 to European Digital Rights (EDRi) With more than two decades of advocacy experience, European Digital Rights (EDRi) is the go-to, nongovernmental network working on EU and national laws and policies on privacy, freedom of expression, participation online, data protection and technology policy. EDRi unites over 50 orga...