Its US based tho, so not in the spirit of this community

open street maps does not handle temporary road closures, construction, or temporary one-ways well

that sadly depends on your region and the amount of volunteers in your area. I remember reading how OSM was more reliable after the 2023 Turkey earthquake for the first responders than Google Maps, because the changes in the terrain were added there much faster.

I don’t know about the road conditions during the navigation. it definitely does support this kind of data as I input it myself every now and then, but I don’t drive so I haven’t had to try out different OSM navigation algorithms to see if they account for it, or anything like that.

200 million trees. Far from greenwashing.

Folks, critical thinking is more important than ever these days. Making conclusions based on a brain fart - when we have the internet at our fingertips - is partly why the world is the way it is.

I listened to a podcast a couple years ago. The founder talked about how he made sure that Ecosia can not be sold and monetized, he himself is not making much money from it. My english is not good enough to explain it in more detail. :)
I see greenwashing everywhere, but as far as I can tell from the podcast and their YouTube, this is legit.

best alternative would probably be something like tripadvisor, for restaurants

obviously it’s not exactly a vastly less shitty option, but at least it’s not google.

No I mean actual censorship. For example, RT and Sputnik. They have also banned PressTV and CGTN. They suspended broadcast licenses for EADaily / Eurasia Daily, Fondsk, Lenta, NewsFront, RuBaltic, SouthFront, Strategic Culture Foundation, and Krasnaya Zvezda / Tvzvezda. All of these sites would be explicitly banned from any EU based search engine.

Note that I am not giving American tech companies a free pass here. Google is one of the worst.

Also note that “censorship” doesn’t exclusively refer to government censorship. That is an American-centric perspective using the Constitution as the lens. Censorship is often conducted by individuals and organisations. In this case I am referring to the EU.

The EU has made numerous moves towards restricting free speech and communication over the last decade, especially in the technology space. These include:

1. Digital Services Act (DSA) (2022)

• The DSA imposes strict regulations on large online platforms and search engines (such as Google and Meta).

• Requires platforms to remove “illegal content” quickly, though the definition of illegal content varies by country.

• Mandates content moderation transparency but can pressure platforms to suppress speech preemptively.

• Enables regulators to demand access to platform algorithms and recommend content moderation changes.

• Forces messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal to comply with EU orders, potentially compromising end-to-end encryption.

2. Digital Markets Act (DMA) (2022)

• Primarily aimed at tech monopolies, but also affects search engines and app stores.

• Limits the ability of platforms to rank their own services higher (e.g., Google prioritizing its own results).

• Forces companies like Apple to open up iMessage to other messaging services, potentially impacting security.

3. Terrorist Content Online Regulation (2021)

• Requires platforms to remove flagged terrorist content within one hour or face heavy fines.

• No clear appeals process, raising concerns about automatic censorship by algorithms.

• Governments can demand removals across all EU member states, limiting national sovereignty over content moderation.

4. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (2018)

• Although GDPR focuses on privacy, it has been used to delist certain search results (right to be forgotten).

• Some critics argue that GDPR can be weaponized to suppress critical information about public figures.

5. Copyright Directive (2019) – Article 17 (formerly Article 13)

• Requires platforms to filter copyrighted content before it is uploaded.

• Forces platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook to proactively block content using automated filters, which often lead to false positives and excessive censorship.

• Criticized for making memes and satire more difficult to share due to automated copyright enforcement.

6. EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018, revised 2022)

• Although voluntary at first, compliance with fact-checking and disinformation policies is now mandatory under the DSA.

• Forces social media companies to demonetize or downrank “misinformation,” often without clear definitions.

• Involves close cooperation with government-backed fact-checkers, raising concerns about political bias.

7. Chat Control Legislation (Proposed in 2022)

• Requires messaging platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal) to scan private messages for child abuse content.

• Critics argue this destroys end-to-end encryption, making all private communication vulnerable.

• Could lead to mass surveillance under the guise of child protection.

8. Political Ads Transparency Act (2023)

• Requires all online political ads to be labeled and traceable.

• Platforms must track funding sources, but unclear definitions of political content could impact activism and independent journalism.

• Could be used to limit grassroots campaigns that lack formal funding structures.

9. Media Freedom Act (2023)

• Gives the EU more oversight over media ownership and state influence on journalism.

• Some journalists worry it could be used to pressure media outlets to align with EU narratives.

These are just the laws. There have been uncounted statements by EU leaders about greater control over the kind of information they wish to allow transmitted in the EU. All of these Acts are rooted in good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. At minimum, a significant portion of the results in the test list above would be banned under existing legislation.