Vlad Note that this is not the same as introducing a moral or political bias, as filtering malware sites directly and indisputably improves search results for the user, which we are in the business of.
I think this was mostly a reach on my part, but I can definitely see an avenue being considered where there needing to be a line decided for what is considered malware and what is not. This still harkens back to the original slippery slope fallacy, and there could be third-parties you could consult to get this information. But I think it reasonably extends. Should a torrent magnet aggregation website be considered malware since it directly supports the unauthorized access of intellectual property? How about websites that allows for downloading of other pieces of software labelled as malware for the goal of education? There could be users who end up using that website to take advantage of systems that have yet to cover vulnerabilities that those pieces of software take advantage of. This could just be hyperbole, but I want to hopefully allow this to illustrate my original point.
I would say no as it is not the business of a third-party to directly intervene with another party's war. But there comes a time later that those being subjugated ask for help, where sides can be taken, and a conclusion can be reached. In particular, we can look at Ethiopia in addition.
Ethiopia is looking to sue Meta for roughly $2bn for posts on their platform potentially inciting hate to the point of assassination and inflammation of their civil war. This serves as a clear example that when not taking a stance, there are consequences being dealt.
And then the ongoing battle of behemoths that happens to be the Russia Ukraine conflict, by behemoths I mean Russia and ultimately its allies up against Ukraine and its allies, for each side fuels those directly involved. Why should Kagi be in a position to passively allow the dissemination of misinformation for a conflict that would inevitably harm its bottomline if a particular side would win? Any country with aspirations such as Russia's would not allow for a web to be as open as it is for us that Kagi takes advantage of with its robust feature-set.
@Vlad Did they carefully study all those conflicts to decide which side has higher moral ground so they can censor results from the other side? Or some human lives matter more than others?
I have to say, human lives do matter more than others when the human lives in question are seeking to eradicate others over something as arbitrary as state borders or identity.
@briskroad1698 There are a lot of opinions and biases in your post. You obviously have a right to do that, but it seems to me like this is exactly something that Vlad wouldn't want to have — and it would be a must if it came to censoring results.
But why should opinions and biases be immediately dismissed as that is what differentiates people from one another? Is it even a possible achievement? It is an opinion that information should be totally free to be disseminated, even when there is undeniable harm involved, so to make no choice is still making a choice. I'm just trying to argue from the perspective that not everything should necessarily be readily accessible as they are today. It has led to the rise of fascist movements and so there should be responsibilities shared by those who stand in a position to curate this content.
Edit: I don't mean to make it seem like I want to sap all autonomy out of parents, but to serve as a helping hand as many of them barely have a concept of the internet while their kids are going to be growing up in one that skirts around the era that was its birth. And while the internet matures or continues through its maturation at a rapid pace, these kids will not exactly have a better idea of the internet and so help will remain welcome.
