Skip to main content


 
Stumbled upon Ecosia on a YouTube ad:
"Ecosia is the search engine that plants trees with its ad revenue."
I don't even know where to start with, the initial YouTube ad, the toxic ad revenue model for search engines or any other website, or the misdirected tree planting with a real-time counter on the homepage. But it somehow manages to make Google look good in comparison.
So putting aside any cynicism I have, it looks like some people who are trying a creative way to finance reforestation. What are your central objections?

My point is that it isn't a search engine company job to care about reforestation. If they have too much money from ad revenue that they can safely spend 80% of their profits on reforestation, this means to me that they are showing ads at least 5 times too much.

I'd rather have a search engine with little to no ads and either send money myself to reforestation organizations or reduce my consumption altogether. But creating yet another search engine company just so that they can get 20% of charity money aimed at reforestation is questionable at best.

I guess it comes down to whether they're a search engine company that runs an ecological project, or an ecological project that operates a search engine to fund itself.

In the latter case, I don't see how it's much different from holding a bake sale, or doing a charity walk. Is it your distaste for advertising in particular that creates revulsion here?

Of course it does. Beyond that, my problem with this company is that they aren't creating any value that already exist. Search engines? There are too many already, and searx is a great initiative to get around that fact. Reforestation efforts? Ongoing, you can already donate to multiple organizations without having to fork 20% to a bunch of misled dudes.

This is just capitalizing on blanket anti-Google and fuzzy "I do good by changing nothing in my life" feelings and I resent them for that.