Vlad As I stated previously, we are a search company. We are not interested in introducing any sort of biases in the results, including moral.
You are introducing biases and morals into your results by not taking a stand. Simply saying that you are opting for neutrality does not excuse the fact that there are plenty of factions of people who will game whatever system it may be to score the top results and become known. And to sit on the sideline and choose to play-ball with each other equally, even when one is obviously more powerful than the other, is to actively do a disservice to that other side. Because that extra influence and energy that more powerful side has will tremendously sway the influence of Kagi itself into allowing its side to squash the other.
Now this could be called out as being us doing the squashing. But it must be gauged where they have a voice and if they should even be allowed to have as prominent of a voice as they do. When I am scrolling through news feeds, I do not like coming across a result from a blatant propaganda website such as Breitbart next to a relatively more credible enterprise such as The New York Times. This gives credence to the words of outright fascists and allows them a veil of normality that, as we are seeing in the United States, will allow for harassment to spread.
Vlad Next thing will be a widget for when a user searches for how to kill somebody, how to do an abortion, how to torture an animal, are vaccines good for you, all the way to how to rob a bank or how to hack a computer.
As widgets currently exist today in Google, Bing, etc., have we ever gotten to your example? These search engines have been around for so long and their widgets, as far as I am personally aware, don't even do much. What is being used is a slippery slope fallacy, one that doesn't do anything but instill concern because it could happen, even though it hasn't been proven, and you, the person in charge, are acutely aware of it being a potential problem. And these widgets being advocated for are out of respect for the users of the service.
Vlad there are political biases
And some politics are harmful, like, for example, the invasion of Ukraine. Russia is actively invading another country simply because they believe the land to be theirs. And if they win, any projects being done over there will be under the scrutiny of the new government. To not take a side in this conflict would be to allow foreign invaders to sap independence from people, such as this very project.
This goes along with minorities that barely have voices. As we are seeing the rise of transphobia, homophobia, and all of the sorts in the face of rising fascism in the United States, why should the voices of these inertly powerful figures continue to be amplified as it actively harms others? There is a difference between being a bootlicker to the government you happen to be under the jurisdiction of, and an annoyance. It isn't considered "living in a civilized world", it's considered complacency.
briskroad1698 I think adding safeguards in the search engine instead of talking to your kids and preparing them for the world wild web is not the correct approach
The web exists in a great state of flux and to properly moderate it in its entirety for the intake of someone's children is next to impossible. It is a gargantuan task to ask parents to educate their kids on what the internet is as there are a multitude of topics to cover. To offer a service like Kagi that already assists in washing away some of the filth can be yet another selling point and may garner positive publicity. Some people will despise it, and if the cards are played right, these are people that shouldn't even be taken seriously if they have problems with it.
MYZuo There's a practically unlimited number of fine gradations to 'threat to human life' so once the easily identifiable boundary of zero/some is crossed, there's simply no further defendable spot to draw the line.
The Kagi team is already making boundaries in this 'threat to human life' infinite number of gradations. Such as filtering for malware, why should this be done as malware don't necessarily act as a threat to human life and yet they make sure to keep it out of their searches. An argument can be made, but by then we're walking into the territory of borders and thus, this post. Double standards are already being held, this is the nature of any service by any person. And to ignore it is to allow whoever is most vocal to succeed.
To now quote a message from Vlad from the Discord guild:
yeah that is called living in a civilized world.
we may not agree with government biases but they have the power to enforce them ultimately, including shutting us down
You are, again, able to make choices and manage them. You, along with your staff, are capable of reaching into the code and make changes as needed. And there is a good portion of the web that can be filtered and still remain entirely legal. There is no such thing as the "neutrality," you have in mind. There are a wide variety of people out there and some of them are responsible for this app, some of them are making payments to hopefully bring around a better search engine, and then there may be others who want to take advantage of this "neutrality" that others like Google and Bing have covered over because of these users' intentions.
I want to give Kagi a chance. I want a better web that is not judged by surveillance capitalism. But this continued rhetoric does not give me hope as I've heard of this line of argument before and only the worst of people were attracted to it.
