what is wrong with using it for "some part" as long as they are balancing it out with other sources? there is no such thing as a search engine that isn't biased or compromised at this point, so pulling from many sources that have different biases sounds fine to me.
you could turn that argument back on itself and say the same thing about american companies since america has been ravaging the middle east for decades.
i like that they are using a diversity of sources with a diversity of biases for their information. i don't want them to just get their information from a single biased source in the west like literally every other search engine out there.
> you could turn that argument back on itself and say the same thing about american companies since america has been ravaging the middle east for decades
Why do people always turn to whataboutism rather than engaging with the criticism directly?
i think that diversity of perspective is better than only filtering for a specific bias. i dont know how many times i need to say it before you understand me. it is in fact YOU who is deflecting rather than addressing the point. you contributed absolutely nothing with your comment.
No, the deflection is yours. The theme of this thread is that some people don't want to give money to Kagi, because Kagi gives money to Yandex, which is associated with the Russian state and provides support for its war effort in Ukraine.
The desirability of diverse perspectives in search has no bearing whatsoever on that subject.
A non-deflective response would be something like: "I know paying money to Kagi indirectly supports Russia in its war against Ukraine, but I don't give a shit about that. What really matters is that my search results must include Kremlin propaganda alongside what I consider to be US propaganda".
Now, I suspect your response is going to be something along the lines of "But Google is American and America has done lots of bad things too." So to save you some time, I'll respond in advance: That too is a deflection. It is true, but it also irrelevant to the point at hand—many Kagi users do not want their money going to the Russian state.
all sources are biased, so i would prefer it include all of them. i dont really care if some of the money goes to russia. i'm not deflecting. i don't know how i could speak more clearly.
Well, my perspective is that the Russian government is much worse than the US government, even if both are bad (although the US is getting worse).
My perspective is also that search engines like Google are bad, but they at least aren't run by the US government in the same way Yandex is run by the Kremlin.
"You can't criticize Kagi using Yandex because the US is also bad" is why it's whataboutism, and why that's not an effective argument.
"XYZ is also bad, so your criticism of ABC isn't allowed."
What you call "whataboutism" is a bullshit term used to dismiss attempts to engage with criticism directly. It's not wrong to point out that the reasoning used to diss Kagi because of Yandex association is knee-jerk nonsense, because following a principled argument would lead one to making much harder changes to their purchasing choices.
See my other comment in this thread - there are degrees to everything, and my view is that the Russian government is one of the worst. It's absolutely valid to be more critical of a Kremlin run search engine than one that's in the US, even if they both have major issues.
And my perspective is that the American alternatives are not as bad as the Russian option. Even if the American alternatives are bad, there are degrees to everything. That's the reality we live in.
I'm concerned that they're paying Yandex—I have friends in Ukraine and friends that wish they could safely be home in Ukraine, and I can't fund a company that is complicit in Putin's wartime propaganda that seeks to keep the Russian people on board with his brutal invasion of my friends' country.
It would help somewhat if the founder could clarify whether funds are going to Yandex Russia or the newly split-off Nebius. If it's the latter I could at least satisfy myself that I believe the companies to be sufficiently distinct.
