sudneo

@sudneo@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

sudneo ,

He has not been sentenced already, I hope you know that. I hope you also know the effort that he and his team made to have the trial been done where he was de-facto prisoner, but also the completely lack of flexibility from those who wanted him to simply step out of the embassy to arrest and extradite him.

The timeline and the events are very well narrated in Stefania Maurizi's book.
It's almost gross how much the rape accusations have been used to try to get to him and how poorly both British and Swedish authorities behaved, probably obeying to the US (colonial power much).

sudneo ,

I have no problem with Proton drive for simple Directory-based backups (Windows only AFAIK at the moment). That said, it is not a specialized backup solution, and for that I think something like backblaze is much better (and cheaper, possibly).

sudneo ,

I know what you are referring to with regards to the LGBTQ+ matter, but the only source is the user who reported it (with a screenshot that did not show anything), the same user who used some completely dishonest and bad faith arguments* to slander the CEO guy. I wouldn't take that at face value and I have absolutely no problem to see, instead, a reason to moderate their comments.

* the CEO of kagi has a website with a "best country ranking", which is just a stupid page with 15 criterias chosen to rank which country is the greatest. The argument was that the guy must be a racist/white suprematist because the top countries for the most part were white (and wealthy. Duh). Apparently they were especially pissed about the fact that he decided to include the Olympic medals pro capite, despite the fact that it's one of the few metrics in which first world countries were not at the top.

sudneo ,

We are talking about the same thread, right?

https://nyan.lol/@zicklepop/111716010186646210

This one.

There is no comment that the "CEO tried to scrub". There is only a discord screenshot of a meta-conversation about the fact that the user claimed their comment was deleted, and the CEO answers that nothing was deleted to avoid this very same accusation, and then says he will delete this (the meta) thread (because it's off-topic).

Not sure what you find funny though, however,

a paraphrased and reinterpreted (in bad faith) piece of a comment

referred to:

and his response is basically that inclusivity is why there is no innovation in tech anymore. i think he wants to get acquired by 37signals.

Which is completely arbitrary. Even wanting to read the comment of the CEO with malice, he said "politics".

…appeal to ethnicity is pretty funny

This has nothing to do with ethnicity, it has to do with words and meaning. Calling someone a fascist for such matter is completely bananas and - frankly - disrespectful towards the people who died fighting the actual fascism. The CEO can be an idiot, or a tech bro, but he expressed his views and let others express theirs. This is pretty evident from their forum.

sudneo ,

The screenshot shows an off-topic comment that complains about other comments being "left up", and the CEO that answers that nothing has been deleted, in fact (I suppose in regards to the topic). The thread in the screenshot was (going to be) deleted because it's off-topic, it's a meta-conversation that doesn't add anything to the general discussion, if not noise and chaos (and tbh, following long conversation in discord is already terrible as it is).

sudneo ,

The second person (I think) referred to the thread in the screenshot when they said "I saw it disappearing live". I have no problems believing that the guy deleted that thread, it's an off-topic thread. What I have problem to believe is that the guy specifically deleted comments from queer folks (which is the point of this post). And again, the person who started the Mastodon thread is someone that - in my view - has no credibility at all, considering the completely dishonest way in which they carried out the conversation.

Not sure what the screenshot you posted is supposed to prove. He closed a thread on the kagifeedback site asking to move the discussion (if needed) in Kagi Discord, where - in fact - happened (although with very little benefit for anybody). AFAIK it's not "his personal Discord" server, it's Kagi's server, and I believe most of the conversation (including the one in the "incriminating" screenshot) happened in #general.
I am really not sure what your point is.

Either way, it doesn't matter what I believe. What I know is that the person making the Mastodon thread is someone in bad faith and with (in my opinion) completely bad takes. Someone who makes such a post, in my opinion is a moron.

sudneo ,

Yeah, that thread linked (https://lemm.ee/comment/8016834) references the same Mastodon thread. I know because I followed all of this few months back.

I do think it is super important to discuss whether a tech bro is just making a quick cash grab product in order to get bought out by a larger corporation, though. As seen with the Skiff tech bros.

Oh yeah, this is definitely interesting, but...while email is somewhat binding as a service, a search engine is not. Give me 2 minutes and I have changed the default search engine on all my devices away from Kagi. If that will be the case (despite the fact that so far, I have no reason to think it is the case), it will be super easy to move away. I think if I were a Skiff customer without a custom domain, I would still be crying instead.

sudneo ,

There is a point that I am clearly failing to make.

All the disagreement about the brave stuff, about the topic that generated discussion is there. You can check for yourself in discord or on the forum. I also want to note that the forum post has been closed temporarily and reopened several times. It's not completely unreasonable to close a topic when the discussions are going completely off the rails, which in this case was happening (both critics and supporters did that).

That said, there is nothing that evidently shows the intention to stifle disagreement, including the request to move the discussion elsewhere (discord has tons of critical content even now). However, the user who started the thread wanted to discuss something else, which is not related to the discussion at hand, but related to how they moderated the discussion (claiming something we have no idea about. Were their comments really deleted? What was their content? Were they maybe violating some rule? Who knows what they wrote, maybe the insulted other users directly). We have no proof whatsoever that they censored comments from queer folks specifically (which is the whole argument of the thread, both mastodon one and the screenshot attached), there is only that user claiming they did because their comments were allegedly deleted (maybe it's true, but again, who knows why). Considering that there is plenty of criticism still present in both discord and the forum, I don't see how I need to suspend the judgment to call that claim bullshit, because I can objectively see that criticism was not censored. In addition to that, I can also make a judgment based on character. That user used completely bullshit claims to fabricate accusations, in that very same context. The whole point of that threat was a smear campaign against that guy, and they didn't bother at all to repeat what they posted, for example, or make a proper argument. They just claimed something with a screenshot that doesn't give any information and other supporting arguments that are even more ridiculous (the country site and the "interpretation" of a sentence that I quoted above).

I am not even sure why there is the need to discuss anything coming from that person. If that was a conservative/trump supporter making some claim with analogue arguments, they would be laughed out of Mastodon (rightfully). And that is the only source about the attitude towards LGBTQ+ folks. Don't you think that before making such a broad statement, we should have at least some consistent pattern? A bunch of examples that show the attitude or something like that?

And no, it's not "two users" because, as I said before, from what I understand the other user referred to the thread in the screenshot, not to the "critical comments" deleted before, which we have no idea about.

sudneo ,

You forget the part where they mentioned a different business model that allows to dump the ad-driven one, aligning the interest of the user and the vendor. In other words, a model in which the company gets the money from the user so that it can build a product for them, rather than getting money from others (advertisers, etc.) so that the user is someone who simply has to be milked for data or sold shit. This frame, in my opinion, changes quite significantly the otherwise dystopian nature of such (future) vision. The objectives in fact are very important in this discussion. Facebook, twitter etc. need people to spend time on their platform to give value to their customers (the advertisers). Creating bubbles, fomenting incendiary content, etc. are all functional to that objective. If the business model was different, the same might not happen.

In any case, the current features that exist (and that are not the speculations on the future in the manifesto) allow the users to customize the rankings as they want, without AI or kagi doing it for us. If I don't want to see fox news when I search for something, I make the conscious choice and downrank it. If I want to see guardian and apnews, I uprank them. The current features empower users to curate their own results, which is very different from an opaque, black-box product doing it for us for specific reasons like might be the case of Facebook.

Ultimately, someone will make a decision about how to rank results in a page. Some algorithm needs to be used. What's a better alternative, compared to me providing strong inputs to such algorithm, that does not raise red flags?

sudneo ,

The privacy policy is also a legally binding document, not just a promise that the company does. If they are found violating it, the GDPR fines are going to hurt and they would lose the customer base in a blink. Their privacy policy right now is exemplary, I am one of those who read policies before using a product and kagi's is literally the best I have seen: clear, detailed, specific and most importantly, good from the privacy perspective.

sudneo ,

They had a security audit, they have a canary on their website, they have a privacy policy which is legally binding, and they have a business incentive.

If you so much suspect that they do collect searches and associate them with accounts (something which they claim they don't do), you can make a report to the relevant data protection authority, which then can audit them.

As someone else also commented, you can use an alias email and pay in crypto if you really wish to not associate your account with your searches. Just be advised that between IP addresses and browser fingerprinting it might always be possible to associate your searches together (even if not to you as an individual with name and surname), and this is something that big CDNs like cloudflare or imperva also provide for you. So you still rely in most cases on what the company says and what their business model is to determine whether you trust them or not.

So far kagi has both a good policy (great policy actually) and a business model that doesn't suggest any interest for them to illegally collect data to sell them.

sudneo ,

https://kagi.com/privacy

Kagi only stores the information about the client that you explicitly provide by using your account, as laid out in our interface. This includes:

Your email to facilitate account access and support contact (ex: password reset)
Your account settings (ex: theme, search region, selected language)

And nothing else.

sudneo ,

And I am saying that there are tools to increase this trust.

I also want to stress that you have no tools really to verify. Open source code is useless, audits are also partially useless. I have done audits myself (as the tech contact for the audited party) and the reality is that they are extremely easy to game and anyway are just point in time snapshots. There is nothing that impedes the company tomorrow to deploy a change that invalidates what was audited. The biggest tools we have are legal protection (I mean, most companies that collect all kind of data disclose that they do nowadays) and economic incentive. Kagi seems to provide good reason to trust them from both these angles.

Obviously, if that's not enough for you, fair enough, but if you are considering a company to be intentionally malicious or deceptive, then even the guarantees you suggest do not guarantee anything, so at this point I really wonder if or how you trust anybody, starting from your ISP, your DNS provider, your browser etc.

sudneo ,

It means that they are open sourcing an increasing number of components? In the very same page they are linked: browser extensions, libraries they use for their AI features.

sudneo ,

I am not understanding something then.

The basics in this case are a legally binding document saying they don't do x and y.
Them doing x or y means that they would be doing something illegal, and they are being intentionally deceptive (because they say they don't do it).

So, the way I see it, the risk you are trying to mitigate it is a company which actively tries to deceive you. I completely agree that this can happen, but I think this is quite rare and unfortunately a problem with everything, that does not have a solution generally (or to be more specific, that what you consider basics - open source code and an audit - do not mitigate).

Other than that, I consider a legally binding privacy policy a much stronger "basic" compared to open source code which is much harder to review and to keep track of changes.

Again, I get your point and whatever your threshold of trust is, that's up to you, but I disagree with the weight of what you consider "the basics" when it comes to privacy guarantees to build trust. And I believe that in your risk mapping your mitigations do not match properly with the threat actors.

sudneo ,

Sure, but if you are considering a malicious party in the kagi case, your steps don't help. What you propose can totally work if you are considering good faith parties.

In other words: assume you use searXNG. If you now want to consider a malicious party running an instance, what guarantees do you have? The source code is useless, as the instance owner could have modified it.
I don't see a privacy policy for example on https://searxng.site/searxng/ and I don't see any infrastructure audit that confirms they are running an unmodified version of the code, which - let's assume - has been verified to respect your privacy.

How do you trust them?

I am curious, what do you use as your search engine?

sudneo ,

OK guarantee was too strong of a word, I meant more like "assurance" or "elements to believe".

Either way, my point stand: you did not audit the code you are running, even if open source (let's be honest). I am a selfhoster myself and I don't do either.

You are simply trusting the software author and contributors not to screw you up, and in general, you are right. And that's because people are assholes for a gain, usually, and because there is a chance that someone else might found out the bad code in the project (far from a guarantee).
That's why I quoted both the policy and the business model for kagi not to screw me over. Not only it would be illegal, but would also be completely devastating for their business if they were to be caught.

But yeah, generally hosting yourself, looking at the code, building controls around the code (like namespaces, network policies, DNS filtering) is a stronger guarantee that no funny business is going on compared to a legal compliance and I agree.
That said, despite being a selfhoster myself, I do have a problem with the open source ecosystem and the inherent dependency on free labour, so I understand the idea of proprietary code. Ultimately this is what allowed kagi to build features that make kagi much more powerful than searXNG for example.

sudneo ,

In reality I did not read anywhere that they intend to create a profile on you. What I read is some fuzzy idea about a future in which AIs could be customised to the individual level. So far, Kagi's attitude has been to offer features to do such customisations, rather than doing them on behalf of users, so I don't see why you are reading that and jumping to the conclusion that they want to build a profile on you, rather than giving you the tools to create that profile.
It's still "data" given to them, but it's a voluntary action which is much different from data collection in the negative sense we all mean it.

sudneo ,

They don't, but a company built on that premise (private search) that does otherwise would be playing with fire. It caters to users that specifically look for that. I would quit in an instant if that would be the case, for example.

Seriously though even if they don’t track you an adversary could compromise them

This is true about pretty much anything. Unless you host and write the code yourself, this is a risk. It is a risk with searXNG (malicious instance, malicious PR/code change that gets approved etc.), with email providers, with DNS providers, etc.

What solution you propose to this, that can actually scale?

sudneo ,

It’s still data given to them, no scare quotes needed.

It is if you decide to give it to them. If it's a voluntary feature and not pure data collection, that's the difference. Which means if you don't want to take the risk, you don't provide that data. I am sure you understand the difference between this and the data collection as a necessary condition to provide the service.

And if that data includes your political alignment, like they say in their manifesto, a data breach would be catastrophic.

Which means you will simply decide not to use that feature and not give them that data?

And even if there isn’t one, using their manifesto to promise a dystopia where you are nestled in a political echo chamber sounds like a nightmare

It depends, really. When you choose which articles and newspapers you consider reputable, you consider that an echo chamber? I don't. This is different from using profiling and data collection to provide you, without your knowledge or input, with content that matches your preference. Curating the content that I want to find online is different from Meta pushing only posts that statistically resonate with me based on the behavioral analysis they have done on top of the data collected, all behind the scenes.
I don't see where the dystopia is if I can curate my own content through tools. This is very different from megacorps curating our content for their own profit.

sudneo ,

… Because based on their manifesto, that’s exactly what Kagi wants to do with you as a search engine; show you the things it thinks you want to see.

no, based on your interpretation of the manifesto. I already mentioned that the direction that kagi has taken so far is to give the user the option to customize the tools they use. So it's not kagi that shows you the thing you want to see, but you, who tell kagi the things who want to see. I imagine a future where you can tune the AI to be your personal assistance, not the company.

Every giant corporation has a privacy policy

It is not having a policy that matters, obviously, it's what inside it that does. Facebook privacy policy is exactly what you would expect, in fact.

sudneo ,

I’ve been quoting the Kagi Corp manifesto.

Yes, but you have drawn conclusions that are not in the quotes.

Let me quote:

But there will also be search companions with different abilities offered at different price points. Depending on your budget and tolerance, you will be able to buy beginner, intermediate, or expert AIs. They’ll come with character traits like tact and wit or certain pedigrees, interests, and even adjustable bias. You could customize an AI to be conservative or liberal, sweet or sassy!

In the future, instead of everyone sharing the same search engine, you’ll have your completely individual, personalized Mike or Julia or Jarvis - the AI. Instead of being scared to share information with it, you will volunteer your data, knowing its incentives align with yours. The more you tell your assistant, the better it can help you, so when you ask it to recommend a good restaurant nearby, it’ll provide options based on what you like to eat and how far you want to drive. Ask it for a good coffee maker, and it’ll recommend choices within your budget from your favorite brands with only your best interests in mind. The search will be personal and contextual and excitingly so!

There is nothing here that says "we will collect information and build the thing for you". The message seems pretty clearly what I am claiming instead: "You tell the AI what it wants". Even if we take this as "something that is going to happen" (which is not necessarily), it clearly talks about tools to which we can input data, not tools that collect data. The difference is substantial, because data collection (a-la facebook) is a passive activity that is built-in into the functionality of the tool (which I can't use it without). Providing data to have functionalities that you want is a voluntary act that you as a user can do when you want and only for the category of data that you want, and does not preclude your use of the service (in fact, if you pay for a service and don't even use the features, it's a net positive for the company if that's how they make money!).

even accusing eyewitnesses of the CEO’s bad behavior of being liars.

What I witnessed is the ranting of a person in bad faith. You are giving credit to it simply because it fits your preconception. I criticized it based on elements within their own arguments, and concluded that for me that's not believable. If that's your only proof of "bad behavior" and that's enough for you, good for you.

What you say is bad for Facebook, is what Kagi Corp wants to do.

Let me reiterate on the above:

you will volunteer your data, knowing its incentives align with yours

Now, let's be clear because I have absolutely no intention to spending my evening repeating the same argument.
Do you see the difference between the following:

  • I use a service to connect with people, share thoughts, read thoughts from others, and the service passively collects data about me so that it can serve me content that helps the company behind it maximizing their profits, and
  • I use a service that I can customize and provide data to in order to customize what I see and what is displayed to me, which has no financial incentive to do anything else with that data because I - the user - am the paying customer.

?

If you don't, and you don't see the difference between the two scenarios above, there is no point for me to continue this conversation, we fundamentally disagree. If you do see the difference, then you have to appreciate that the nature of the data collection moves the agency from the company to the user, and a different system of incentive in place creates an environment in which the company doesn't have to screw you over in order to earn money.

sudneo ,

It’s pretty clear that you only draw your conclusions from a predetermined trust in Kagi, a brand loyalty.

As I said before, I also draw this conclusion based on the direction that they have currently taken. Like the features that actually exist right now, you know.
You started this whole thing about dystopian future when talking about lenses, a feature in which the user chooses to uprank/downrank websites based on their voluntary decision. I am specifically telling that this has been the general attitude, providing tools so that users can customize stuff, and therefore I am looking at that vision with this additional element in mind.
You instead use only your own interpretation of that manifesto.

Kagi Corp is good, so feeding data to it is done in a good way, but Facebook Corp is bad so feeding data to it is done in a bad way.

You are just throwing the cards up.
If you can't see the difference between me having the ability to submit data, when I want, what I want and Facebook collecting data, there are only two options: you don't understand how this works, or you are in bad faith. Which one it is?

sudneo ,

The “lens” feature isn’t mentioned in either Kagi manifesto.

So? It exists, unlike the vision in the manifesto. Since the manifesto can be interpreted in many ways (despite what you might claim), I think this feature can be helpful to show the Kagi intentions, since they invested work into it no? They could have build data collection and automated ranking based on your clicks, they didn't.

People just submitted it. I don’t know why. They “trust me”. Dumb fucks.

Not sure what the argument is. The fact that people voluntary give data (for completely different reasons that do not benefit those users directly, but under the implicit blackmail to use the service)? I have no objections anyway against Facebook collecting the data that users submit voluntarily and that is disclosed by the policy. The problem is in the data inferred, in the behavioral data collected, which are much more sneaky, and in those collected about non users (shadow profiles through the pixel etc.). You putting Facebook and an imaginary future Kagi in the same pot, in my opinion, is completely out of place.

sudneo ,

On the other hand, you can approach the dramatic cut of emissions from both angles, as in "you are not legally able to do what you want as long as you can pay for it, and you have the responsibility in minimizing emissions".

Internet does generate a lot of emissions. Streaming quality, website size. Whatever we do to reduce the energy demand is a good idea, as long as we don't think of it as " The Solution", but as part of a wide range of actions aimed at slashing energy consumption.

sudneo ,

They have literally an explanation for this on their website. You might disagree, but saying "it makes no sense"...makes no sense.

Also, they discontinued the earbuds and still no jack on FP5, so the idea that "they wanted to sell their own buds" doesn't seem to be likely.

sudneo ,

While I disagree with some of the positions in this specific instance. They do have their right to express their opinion on the nature and direction of the fediverse. Reducing everything to the individual experience is focusing on technical features but not on the collective and social aspects.

There are also tons of people who can't really help but using the same corporate metrics: growth, reach, users count, adoption. Not everyone agrees on these as objectives to pursue, and it makes sense to be vocal about the general direction from that perspective (because it goes way beyond my personal narrow experience).

That said, I can't stand those who use excuses like "privacy" or "there are bad actors", as their main motivations, because these are also largely individual problems.
On the other hand, opposing to keep separated a corporate, for profit, social media from the fediverse is a whole different matter.

sudneo ,

I disagree, it is a set of multiple entities but there is a common denominator. For example, free software, no advertising as a business model, not commercial, not run by big corporations and talking over AP.

I think it's not pointless nor wrong to discuss these shared values (de facto values, beyond the technical fact I can spin up an AP software) and how certain parties do not share them and therefore should not be part of the fediverse in principle.

sudneo ,

Of course not, that's idiotic behavior, but obviously not what I was referring to

sudneo ,

None of those are requirements to be part of the fediverse.

They are de-facto values of the fediverse today. It depends what you mean by "requirements". Technically, you can join the fediverse in many ways, but the fediverse is not just a bunch of servers talking to each other, it's also a community of people. This community rejects some members for different reasons.

there’s multiple companies invested in the fediverse: Mozilla, Flipboard, Facebook, Automatic being the most obvious.

But those companies are very different, aren't they?
Mozilla and Flipboard are participating within the fediverse, they are not plugging in their things, and their business models are not the same as Meta, and it is compatible with the values mentioned (well, Mozilla is a no-profit, in theory?). Wordpress is on the other hand very much aligned with the values of the fediverse. It is not the same as Meta and Bsky, both with the Silicon Valley DNA in them and all that it entails.

Truth Social, Gab, Spinster, etc are all on the fediverse despite being abhorrent to the majority of the rest of the fediverse.

And this is exactly where I disagree. Are they part of the fediverse? I wouldn't say so. They are completely isolated islands, that happen to use protocols that are similar to those used from the fediverse (software). They are not part of the fediverse if by that we mean the set of communities that populate it at all.

I suppose this is where the root of our disagreement lies. For me the technical network that links tools is not the fediverse. The fediverse is what is built on top of that network and it is inherently linked with the community and their values, in other words, it's a social subject.
Personally, I can't care less if tomorrow anybody starts using AP and can (technically) interoperate with Lemmy or Mastodon etc., I would definitely push for the rejection of - say - Facebook (like the literal facebook) or Reddit, or Twitter etc.

sudneo , (edited )

I stopped hearing discussions about it long ago. I suppose the thing died down.

One thing I will never understand is their endless complaint about moderation tools.
They had/have a decent amount of donation, why they didn't just put a bounty on the features they needed in github and encourage contributions in that space (if not contributing directly)? It feels like it was sterile criticism when they had/have the means to actually work on the solution.

EDIT:
Adding to the above. From their opencollective page, they are in +6k$. Even 1000$ on a feature and I think plenty of people will want to contribute. Considering that they were complaining about a handful of features, I don't see how it was not feasible. That will both give back to the developers and get them where they are. Win-win...?

sudneo ,

And that's fair enough. However, putting a bounty on the feature is definitely a big incentive that might have caused those features to be implemented by someone else and/or prioritized.

sudneo ,

Tbh, for me the value of flatpak is in the isolation (great for how easy it is to achieve), rather than the compatibility.

For example, I run obsidian with no network access and fs access to just the path where my notes are stored. This is really reassuring considering I am not really sure what all the plugins might do. While it is not perfect, it's much better than having it running natively in my box (I.e. root namespaces).

sudneo ,

It's also not too hard to cook a Dockerfile for it, or even write a systemd wrapper with security settings. However, with flatpak you get this out of the box and mostly in a transparent way, plus you get all the usually annoying aspects (like having GUI applications work in containers) taken care of.

sudneo ,

Flatpak is generally very good for security. Especially considerino you can override some defaults, you can have fairly tight isolation.

sudneo ,

That is one security aspect only, and signature checking is done by OStree, but the only key used is the one from flathub, from what I understand. So you don't verify the key of the application author, but solely the one from flathub, which means if the flathub distribution pipeline is compromised, you will not notice it and install a malicious package.

That said, the isolation that provides is great, and things should be evaluated in context. I will consider much much more likely that a package I install has bugs/cves/is outright malicious, compared to the risk that the publisher pipeline gets compromised (this is essentially what the signature verification would protect from). This means that it is a huge net gain in terms of security, from my PoV, to have an "unverified" package running in flatpak, under the isolation that it provides, if we compare it to having it running in the native system, but verified.

In other words, there is not a specific scale that if you "don't even do..", then it means you are not secure at all.

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    sudneo ,

    Really? I switched everything for almost 3 years now, and to be honest for me was a "fire and forget" situation. I run /e/OS on my phone and I had basically no issues ever. I moved to Proton mail with a few clicks and their migration tool, I always used firefox, and then I switched to kagi.com as a search engine approx. 1 year ago. That's pretty much it, but I have to say, I was not a very heavy user of all the bells and whistles Google makes.

    How do I create a docker container with custom programs inside?

    Hello! I have a free account at hide.me and would like to try to use it with my docker compose containers. The free plan does not give me the keys for openVPN of Wireguard configuration, but only through the official client. I'd like then to create a docker container that runs the official hide.me client inside, and exposes it...

    sudneo ,

    Each container, by default, runs in a separate network namespace. You can use docker CLI to create specific networks that can be shared with other containers, or use docker-compose for it. Technically, for processes outside containers you can still use the same network of that container by running the inside the network namespace of the 'VPN' container (for example running them with unshare). However, I wouldn't recommend this, as containers are supposed to run mostly isolated workload and not for this kind of use-case. But yeah, technically it's feasible.

    Kagi doubles down on paid Brave partnership despite losing at least 0.5% of users in 1 day. And invoking Godwin's Law ( kagifeedback.org )

    "Should we not be buying VW, BMW, Siemens and Bayer technology and products today because they participated in holocaust and directly collaborated with Hitler?" -- CEO of Kagi when given feedback re: Brave partnership

    sudneo ,

    everyone should be able to get good results without needing to pay.

    Until this stuff is funded with public money, it's not really doable for such a compute and storage intense task.

    I am perfectly OK with paying for good software, until then. I also agree with the principle of aligning interests of users and the search provider by having the users pay. Other models (ads, sponsoring) creates incentive to favour those who pay. The other reasonable model is donation, that can work potentially, but it has its problems.

    sudneo ,

    In fact it's not comparable, because this is a metasearch engine. Kagi has quite many unique features and besides that it's great in surfacing small websites (for which it mostly uses its own crawler) and downranking pages full of tracking.
    They are just different and the Kagi model is the most reasonable, in my opinion, for what it does (search engine).

    sudneo ,

    I saw no evidence of that.

    Looking at the "evidence" discussed, I saw three points:

    • The refusal to disengage with Brave. It's totally possible to disagree with his position, but the overall motivations were legit and no "fascist" attitude was shown. Users screaming "cancel culture" were shut down

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/94ad0b0d-2b5a-4a0b-a331-509bacfc9a5c.png

    there was clear intention to discuss, and it has always been done in a respectful way.

    • The refusal to support the widget that prompts for suicide hotlines. Even here, I personally agree with the motivation provided, but it doesn't matter, it does not have anything to do with being a fascist. Moreover, the discussion about that was quite lengthy and definitely showed a good-faith engagement from their side.
    • Finally, the most ridiculous of all, which was part of the mastodon thread linked. Some user claims that "queer people" were getting censored in Discord (we have no evidence except for a private exchange which seems off-topic) and that https://greatcountry.org/ is apparently a proof that the creator (CEO of Kagi) is a white supremacist, because the countries on the top of the list are mostly white countries. I won't even go into details in this one, because it's such an idiotic statement that qualifies way more the user making this claim, which shows -in my opinion- a complete lack of a good faith and the desire to really find any angle to disqualify the person (possibly due to lacking ability to discuss the arguments). The other "proof" (the thread has 3 posts) is a paraphrased and reinterpreted (in bad faith) piece of a comment, which even includes an addendum that takes the distance from this statement. The guy mentioned that "politics into tech is the reason there is no innovation", and the Mastodon user rephrases it as "inclusion is the reason [...]", which is a completely different statement (it is possible that's what the guy meant, but that's not what he said).

    If this is anybody's definition of fascism, then I personally consider that person's opinion on fascism completely irrelevant. Now, since my mother tongue has the unfortunate responsibility for having coined the term "fascism", I think I have at least an idea of what it means. It means -in a wider sense- discrimination, suppression of minorities and violence as a mean to shut down opposition.
    I see no such thing in this context, and if you do, I think it's time you provide some evidence for this claim, because just name-calling random people fascist on the internet doesn't help anybody, and it doesn't help in particular due to the fact that waters down the term and reduces its meaning.

    sudneo ,

    And before Yandex, Google - which they use since the beginning, and which it makes also clear that using the services of a company is at the moment a necessary evil, and does not mean in any way endorsing the values (or lack thereof...) of that company.

    But apparently some people are really tunnel visioning on some specific issues and looking at them from a short term perspective only.

    Being political I would say that this is an unfortunate result of the lack of a strong collective movement in the left, which leads to people looking mostly at individual problems but not at collective problems, because these seem overwhelming and potentially destabilizing for the status quo.

    sudneo ,

    Privacy and anonimity are different things. As long as nobody besides you and the indented destination(s) has access to the content of your communication, that communication maintains privacy, even if everyone sees that it's you talking.

    Also, and this is something I mention all the time, the only information this gives is that you use signal. Besides that, as soon as anybody else registered your phone in their contact list, your phone number is already known and associated with you considering that many apps (like all the meta ones) gain access to the contact list and the chance that anybody who has your phone number uses one of those is almost 100%.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •