@Vlad here's a few examples of consistent responses that keep the voicing and tone informational and tactical:
Q: What is Kagi's stance on content filtering and moderation?
Kagi adopts a position of search neutrality. This means we strive to provide unadulterated responses to search queries that simply reflect the content present on the web to the extent maximally allowable under the legal jurisdictions in which we operate. Our users pay for our service so the incentives are naturally aligned for us to provide unbiased responses, since anything less would be a disservice to our users. Kagi operates in service of a mission to humanize the web and that starts by treating its users with autonomy and respect.
Q: If Kagi adopts a stance of search neutrality, why does it filter NSFW content by default?
Kagi only filters NSFW content by default for free users, since we do not have an established relationship with these users, and aren't in the business of tracking people, we filter results to match the most restrictive, common denominator, legal requirements, which include not serving explicit content to minors. Paid users who are fully onboarded to the platform are at liberty to entirely define their own search experience from lenses to custom content filtering policy appropriate for their own unique contexts and those of any family members via our family accounts.
Q: If editorializing search results demonstrably reduced harm in specific scenarios, would Kagi consider changing its stance in those scenarios?
Kagi is a powerful tool and with great power comes great responsibility on behalf of its users. Like all neutral service provider platforms, Kagi cannot be held liable for the content it surfaces because Kagi plays no role in editorializing results outside of the context of interpreting a user's specific search query and determining relevance. If Kagi started editorializing content, it would no longer be legally protected as a neutral platform. Furthermore, doing so would create a bad product experience for users trying to find clear results. While other search providers may tell you to be sensitive when searching for "french jokes", Kagi will never patronize you.
Q: What does Kagi do to limit the spread of misinformation?
Kagi assumes the intent of the author of a search query is to find content on the internet. Kagi will return truth, satire, comedy, absurdity, and outright falsehoods if such content exists fulfills the user's query. It is up to individuals to verify the validity and integrity of any content they come across, whether online or off, and irrespective of how they end up finding it. And Kagi provides users powerful tools to filter and deprioritize content that they do not find useful, contextually. If there is any question about the legitimacy of the content of any search query results, then the appropriate action is to engage directly with the author of the objectionable content, or the relevant authorities with jurisprudence over the matter.
I'm sure you and your team can craft better responses than these, but I wrote this up to demonstrate that you don't need to dip into logical fallacies, resource limitations, and search mechanics minutia to defend your position. There are practical and IANAL but legally tactical reasons why Kagi cannot start editorializing and filtering content if it wishes to remain a neutral search platform. Hope you understand more where I'm coming from and hope this was helpful even if only marginally.
