So #Kagi is now partnering with #Brave, i.e. the company of Brendan Eich, who has been CEO at Mozilla for eleven days before he had to leave due to massive criticism of his homophobic views. Brave's most well-known product is a browser with its own cryptocurrency, co-designed by Eich.
A feedback post asking Kagi to reconsider has been closed by Kagi's founder Vladimir Prelovac because "Considering company x founder political views is not a factor in [their] evaluation".
https://kagifeedback.org/d/2808-reconsider-your-partnership-with-brave
Quite a controversial decision… I love Kagi though, but I don’t understand why they would want to drag Brave into this.
Fair enough. IMO, Brave isn’t a big enough player compared to many other companies in the enterprise space used by Kagi (both that we know of as consumers and wouldn’t know of without being an employee with knowledge of their internal SaaS agreements) that Kagi’s specific use case of Brave singularly would have been the deal breaker (for me).
Personally, getting that granular with money flow quickly becomes untenable as a consumer as every business will, to some degree, end up paying for some level of service from the companies we hope to lessen the power of. As a consumer example, I may really dislike how Google is influencing the standards of consumer data privacy in the world and choose not to pay for or use Google products/services directly, but I couldn’t imagine boycotting all companies that use Google Workspace internally for email, docs, sheets, etc.
Kagi seems to be a main player that’s opening the conversation of paying for internet search when the world is used to a standard of “free” search, so saying they can’t utilize the existing search data sources is going to make that experience dead in the water. We need ripples if we hope for change.
Edit: sudneo‘s comment actually summed up my thoughts pretty well.
In my personal opinion, such unrealistic ethical requirements end up being a reactionary choice as they will ultimately impede new - better - players to emerge and will leave the existing - worse - dominating.
I mean, you’re focused on minimizing a concluding thought around an informative dialogue originated by me asking about the perspectives of those feeling impacted by this (of which I’m not). I didn’t find the responses to be a waste of time to read so not sure why you felt that detracting from the discourse was to be your contribution rather than sharing your own perspective to further the group’s discussion.
I drew the line at Brave.
Fair enough. IMO, Brave isn’t a big enough player compared to many other companies in the enterprise space used by Kagi (both that we know of as consumers and wouldn’t know of without being an employee with knowledge of their internal SaaS agreements) that Kagi’s specific use case of Brave singularly would have been the deal breaker (for me).
Personally, getting that granular with money flow quickly becomes untenable as a consumer as every business will, to some degree, end up paying for some level of service from the companies we hope to lessen the power of. As a consumer example, I may really dislike how Google is influencing the standards of consumer data privacy in the world and choose not to pay for or use Google products/services directly, but I couldn’t imagine boycotting all companies that use Google Workspace internally for email, docs, sheets, etc.
Kagi seems to be a main player that’s opening the conversation of paying for internet search when the world is used to a standard of “free” search, so saying they can’t utilize the existing search data sources is going to make that experience dead in the water. We need ripples if we hope for change.
Edit: sudneo‘s comment actually summed up my thoughts pretty well.
That’s a really easy conclusion to come to when you weren’t the one being targeted.
And that’s a lot of words to say this isn’t your issue so you aren’t doing anything about it. Nobody needs the hand wringing. You can just say it.
Care to expand? Not sure how anything I’ve said is hand wringing nor what you’re implying I should be doing.
Your entire comment can be boiled down to “I don’t find this “tenable” and the issue isn’t important to me relative to other issues”.
That’s fine. You can think that. Just go the brevity route next time. It respects the reader more than a wall of text.
I mean, you’re focused on minimizing a concluding thought around an informative dialogue originated by me asking about the perspectives of those feeling impacted by this (of which I’m not). I didn’t find the responses to be a waste of time to read so not sure why you felt that detracting from the discourse was to be your contribution rather than sharing your own perspective to further the group’s discussion.
It will be easier to sympathise with you if you explain how Brave has targeted you or impacted your life.
I’m not trying to convince. I’m trying to say use less words.