Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect).
^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^‘optout’.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^
loudwhisper@infosec.pub 11 months ago
I understood that.
You mix this, to then say this:
But you maybe misunderstood me (I will pretend it was not intentional). Not all the people who participated in that conversation are supporting the criticism you quote. And that is what I said:
I did not say that very few people participated, which is anyway also true with respect to 19k users. However, this is without considering that it’s very likely many more people read that conversation, even without commenting, let alone the fact that that’s the result you find when you look for “kagi and brave”, which means if you are learning about this topic, you will go read that thread and get familiar with these facts.
This has nothing to do with a slippery slope. It’s just applying the same principle which is a very common process to decide on moral/ethical stances. I think that Google is way worse than brave. The economical, social and environmental impact of Google is orders of magnitude bigger than the impact that Eich’s donation to support homophobic position had on the world, or the one that Brave has with its crypto-bs. Mass-violation of privacy, layoffs, complete distortion of the internet based on the dominance, anti-competitive behavior, cooperation with US DoD and the military apparatus, the list is long. Given this, if your argument is that Kagi shouldn’t use (i.e., fund) Brave, mine is that Google is worse than Brave, hence if we want to apply the principle “it should not fund companies with harmful practices”, it should not fund it. And let’s also add that it shouldn’t fund Yandex, considering it’s a Russian company which pay taxes in Russia (funding the invasion of Ukraine?) and who knows how manipulates the information for the benefit of government propaganda. So, there are good arguments to not fund any of these companies on the basis of the same moral claim. There are subsets of users which probably have different hierarchies of “who is worse”, but for sure none of those companies will pass the bar to be considered “not harmful”, so then you need to decide whether the benefits of not doing business with them improve the world or doesn’t. From my PoV, as I explained, the benefits of having a company without harmful practices is bigger, even if in the short term means funding a little shitty companies. In fact, I also stated specifically that given Brave can be a replacement for Google, it is a net positive even without other considerations, and that’s because I’d rather have money sent to Brave than to Google.
I understand they are working on a feature to do that.
That’s for the most part written by the same guy anyway, it’s a small company. Also, as I said before, if you are learning about the kagi/brave controversy, you will end up in the forum (which is public and linked everywhere), I would expect is the same if you want to know more about the company.
What does it mean, lol. Language similarity doesn’t mean they are pretending to be a noprofit. They have a mission to “humanize the web”, and they tend to stress that they want to improve “internet” as a whole. How does this relate to hiding being a for-profit company/pretending to be nonprofit? The message if anything is that they want to reconcile the need to run a business with doing it in a way that empowers, and does not harm, the customers. Why would you read in bad faith an attempt to show that for-profit companies do not necessary have to violate user’s rights to pursue profit?
As I said, I think you are simply attributing the meaning you want to sentences to make them mean what you want.
Who on Earth would read this and think that it’s a noprofit? It’s a company that is trying to do (or says that it’s trying to do) something in a more ethical way than what happens in the market.
By the way, they talk about humanizing the web and I think their effort in the context of the “small web” goes in this direction. Surfacing more content written by individuals I think is a good idea and makes the internet a tiny bit more human.
I appreciate how you completely ignored all other arguments that did not play well with your thesis, like the concrete example of how they passed the saving back to the users when they could, instead of sucking them dry like a regular for profit corporation would have done. I understand this conflicts with the picture you want to paint of a forprofit corporation being necessarily evil (statement with which I agree in a good 85% of the cases), but as I said, I think that so far they have a solid track record.
I also answered to your specific query about the Brave controversy, explaining my thought process and my reason. So if you disagree, I would like to know why you would be OK to fund Google but not Brave. Or Yandex. I am curious about which moral principles lead you to that conclusion. Since I have been kind enough to explain my position very clearly, and you ignored the whole thing, I’d like you to do the same, if possible.
LWD@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Fair enough. However, I think the quality of the criticism is more interesting than the quantity of people engaging in it.
Which is true, but I’ve gotten at least one person replying to my comments saying that they were not aware of what Kagi was doing with Brave, and as a result wants to now avoid Kagi. Again, people aren’t going to dig that deep.
They’re definitely not going to read this far into our conversation, which is also why I ended up skipping chunks of stuff you said without commenting on it, because otherwise this conversation is going to become infinitely long and one of us is going to accuse the other of being Hitler.
And you present a good argument, that in total, Google causes more harm than Brave. But my problem with Brave, in addition to pandering towards the worst kind of people (not politically, of course, but the crypto bros), is that it causes far more harm for its scale than Google.
Car accidents kill more people in the United States than shark attacks, but I bet you would spend more time on a sidewalk than in a shark cage, given the option.
Which, I think, answers the thing you were most interested in.
Because cringe corporate speak always looks to me like a disingenuous way of trying to differentiate your company from a different company. Kagi isn’t the only corporation that doesn’t do this (Proton does it worse) but they were the only one that was relevant.
And when people who had previously bought into Kagi’s “humanize” corpospeak only to see Kagi start shuttling money to a man known for his attempt to de-humanize minorities, and watching Kagi justify the decision by how it might at best save them a couple bucks down the line, I’m not surprised they would speak up.
Sure, Kagi Corp is making promise after promise. For now. You cite their good track record, but with their Brave Corp partnership, they have now initiated a bad track record.
loudwhisper@infosec.pub 11 months ago
I will cut it short because I think we understood each other. I get your point of view, and I think it boils down to relative vs absolute harm. I think that consolidating the already established monopoly is worse, but ultimately it doesn’t matter, you seem to reach the conclusion of third parties (which is similar to what I also reached, meaning Kagi wouldn’t exist). The problem with that imho is that it doesn’t move the needle. It does not present an alternative way to provide internet services for companies. I am not sold yet on free labor and donations as the basis for the internet. I think there are a few cases that work (lichess being my favourite), but ultimately I don’t think it scales or applies to everything. Besides, that also works until the big dogs allow it to work, and if they do, they are probably still earning on it (the moment Google wants to shut down searx, it locks the scraping and goodbye).
I do like Kagi’s features, I do like their own scrapers results (personal/small websites, which I find much more useful compared to corpo blogs about tech stuff). I do like the concept of lens where I decide where to search easily, same for upranking/downranking websites in a custom way. I wouldn’t consider this event part of a bad track, I think this is still a reasonable business strategy, although I will hold them accountable in the future (as they grow, they should do more in-house).