As ericd said, it depends on the percentage of DDG's userbase, as well as the effect on the bottom line. From a business perspective, that's 6,000,000 highly impressionable eyeballs that aren't generating ad revenue. From an ethical perspective, those are human beings that "deserve" access to a good search engine to e.g. help them learn how to read a map.
Your "ethical perspective" is only relevant if DDG is a "good" search engine. Considering the extreme slowness and utter irrelevancy of results, I think you'll find that a highly debatable issue.
I'm not the one who injected a question of quality into the discussion, and not agreeing with the obviously-biased founder of DDG is not "trolling". Please apologize.
If somebody is using it, they presumably think that it is good, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to them. Hell, the issue of quality doesn't even have bearing on nitrogen's statement; it works just as well if you remove the word 'good'. You very clearly were trolling and I will certainly will not apologize.
> You very clearly were trolling and I will certainly will not apologize.
Well, you'll be happy to know I'll be ignoring anything you post from now on. I certainly won't engage with someone who can't tell the difference between honest fundamental disagreement and trolling.
