With Google, you've got tracking cookies, logged-in sessions, and IP-based tracking to deal with.
For DDG, with a surveillance proxy installed, you're limited to IP + browser fingerprinting. You can largely defeat both with the addition of privoxy and TOR. I agree that, were DDG compelled to install monitoring equipment, their assurances are fairly thin defense. But they are an improvement over the status quo.
Meanwhile, you'll also escape the sort of snooping and across-the-net following side-effects of advertising and marketing:
For DDG, with a surveillance proxy installed, you're limited to IP + browser fingerprinting. You can largely defeat both with the addition of privoxy and TOR. I agree that, were DDG compelled to install monitoring equipment, their assurances are fairly thin defense. But they are an improvement over the status quo.
Meanwhile, you'll also escape the sort of snooping and across-the-net following side-effects of advertising and marketing:
https://smoncelle.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/hiding-a-pregnanc...
DDG's claims of not tracking are auditable, though I'm not aware that they've actually been audited. It absolutely is a step in the right direction.