Ecosia, the search engine that sells you a good feeling by misleading you.
The claim they make is: If you use Ecosia for searching on the internet, they will plant a tree. On average, a tree for every 43 searches or so.
In reality, they plant only trees if you click on ads. If you use Ecosia with an adblocker, you don't make them plant trees. You actually increase the CO2 footprint, because they are a front end for Bing. Searching with Ecosia = more servers involved to route your search keywords, possibly less relevant results, resulting in even more searches.
Yes, "if you click on ads, we plant trees" is nothing they want to say on their landing page. It might even be problematic to say this, because it encourages click fraud. But still, I hate the misleading messaging.
You have a point, but Ecosia strives to be carbon negative, including trying to compensate Bing's emissions (which Bing doesn't make clear how much is carbon neutral) [0]. And while you are right more users, even users that block all ads, is a good thing. If nothing else, being in the top 5 search engines in many countries assures Ecosia is present in Android's search engine choice screen [1].
Good for you. But this is what I hate about companies that sell you morality. Tell me "this product kicks google's ass. And also, it helps you do good". Do not alter the purpose of a product or attempt to make it appear like it is superior on morality alone. People use a product for a reason and you need to compete against the other guys and meet that need.
Tell me how great your product is and then tell me how you are the good guys so that I can decide to sacrifice some quality for morals. If you sell morality first then you are telling me you lack confidence in your own product. Tell me how your product at least comes close to your competition first.
Otherwise, I will just use Google,ddg or bing and donate to the charity of my choice.
It is sad that for several of the alternative web search engines their entire pitch seems to be "We are not Google". With few exceptions, they are engaged in the same business of deriving revenue from a connection between web search and advertising. Always making some marketing claims about privacy. Advertising inevitably has an effect on web search, as the Google founders admitted in 1998. Only the web search engines that break the connection of marketing/advertising to web search are truly interesting to me. When there is "no money in web search", then we have made progress in improving web search quality.
It may be true that web search is not free, advertisers cover the costs, but advertisers are paying so much more than the actual costs. Thanks to Google's abandonment of their original promise in 1998 and their ensuing success, as long as web search is deemed a "business", it will only decline in quality.
Yeah my work is promoting ecosia internally. But I feel it's more of a scam. Ecosia is just like Google but a bit of the ad revenue goes to planting trees.
If they really cared so much they could easily donate tens of times that amount to planting trees directly. Because we're talking cents per user per month. That they don't bother at all makes it look to me like virtue signalling without having to actually spend any money.
Considering the late stage of climate change it's too late for this imo. And this kind of initiative only makes people rich while giving companies a reason not to really do something to contribute.
The same way the airlines around here give you the option of 'compensating' CO2 through some fancy commercial scheme. On my last 4000km round trip I could compensate it for 1.57 euros. Most of it will not make it to the trees but stick in 'overhead'. Eh yeah right.. If it was as easy as that we really would have fixed the problem by now.
It's literally impossible for Ecosia to donate significantly more to tre planting and other initiatives. 80% of profits always go to the ecological projects, or go to the"tree fund". This tree fund can be used in a (sometimes literal) rainy day. It was, for example, possible to support some of the organizations during the pandemic while their countries suffered total lockdowns. Those communities might have struggled much more otherwise.
The only way to donate much more is... Well, increase revenue. But Ecosia wants that as much as anyone else. If you want to learn more, the financial reports are public... [0]
By 'scam' I don't mean you as ecosia are scamming, and sorry for conveying that sentiment. I do however think that about the airline scheme I mentioned :)
What I mean is that my work has done this and is patting themselves on the chest for doing 'a green thing'. Meanwhile they are making billions and not using any of that money to improve the environment.
I think we should go beyond trying to find 'win-win scenarios' and really do something. This is where the 'scam' part comes in. I appreciate what you're trying to do but IMO it is a matter of too little too late. Companies should put their money where their mouths are and not just trying to 'be green' with some quick freebies. It gives them a cheap cop-out.
The real problem is that people don't want it to cost money. Meanwhile the problem gets bigger and bigger...
...and thats exactly why you should support Ecosia instead of assuming that they are greeenwashing anything like your company (here's me assuming) does.
It is wrong, imho, to think, just because an employer uses Ecosia as a scapegoat, to think they are doing the same. Or am I misinterpretating your comments?
I also find it frustrating that a lot of these social/environmental companies underpay engineers. Just because the deed is good, doesn't mean people don't deserve decent compensation. Especially a company like Ecosia, which is racking in the cash.
Who says Ecosia underpays anyone? Please don't spout nonsense.
The salaries are not top 1%, but each Euro paid in salary is one euro not going to the projects (only 80% of profits, not revenue, are guaranteed to finance ecological projects). Salaries are fair and the market is analysed yearly for adjustment.
Perhaps the renumeration is fair for the market of environmental and social startups in Berlin, but thats quite low in comparison to other industries and to the rest of Germany.
There is often this premise that just because you are “doing good” that you don’t deserve good or better than good renumeration.
You even said it yourself, that less money to developers means more money to your cause.
These two ideas are not diametrically opposed, we have been taught they are. A startup as successful as Ecosia is in position to pay its developers above these market rates you suggest
And honestly it shows, I dont use Ecosia because the results are (in my opinion) subpar. My argument is if Ecosia attracted the best talent in the world by paying more, their product would be superior than what it is, and as a result they would earn even more money for their cause.
The claim they make is: If you use Ecosia for searching on the internet, they will plant a tree. On average, a tree for every 43 searches or so.
In reality, they plant only trees if you click on ads. If you use Ecosia with an adblocker, you don't make them plant trees. You actually increase the CO2 footprint, because they are a front end for Bing. Searching with Ecosia = more servers involved to route your search keywords, possibly less relevant results, resulting in even more searches.
Yes, "if you click on ads, we plant trees" is nothing they want to say on their landing page. It might even be problematic to say this, because it encourages click fraud. But still, I hate the misleading messaging.