To be clear, you want a venture capital corporation to keep you in your filter bubble regarding your political beliefs, your corporate brand choices, your political beliefs, your philosophical beliefs, etc?

Thankfully, I kagi is not a VC-funded corp. The latest investment round was for 670k, pennies, from 42 investors, which means an average of less than 20k/investor (they also mention that most are kagi users too but who knows).

Also, it depends on what it means “being kept in a filter bubble”. If I build my own bubble according to my own criteria (I don’t want to see blogs filled with trackers, I want articles from reputable sources - I.e. what I consider reputable, if I am searching for code I only want rust because that’s what I am using right now, etc.) and I have the option to choose when to look outside, then yes, I think it’s OK. We all already do that anyway, if I see an article from fox news I won’t even open it, if on the same topic I see something from somewhere else. That said, there are times where I can choose to read fox news specifically to see what conservatives think.

The crux of it all is: who is in charge? And what happens with that data? If the answers are “me” and “nothing”, then it’s something I consider acceptable. It doesn’t mean I would use it or that I would use it for everything.

evangelize that kind of product on a privacy forum?

First, I am not evangelizing anything. That product doesn’t even exist, I am simply speculating on its existence and the potential scenarios.

Second: privacy means that the data is not accessed or used by unintended parties and is not misused by the intended ones. Focus on unintended. Privacy does not mean that no data is gathered in any case, even though this is often the best way to ensure there is no misuse. This is also completely compatible with the idea that if I can choose which data to give, and whether I want to give it at all (and of course deleting it), and that data is not used for anything else than what I want it to be used for, then my privacy is completely protected.

You are really moving the goal post eh

Developing AI feature does not mean anything in itself. None of the AI features they built do anything at all in a personalized way. For sure they seem very invested into integrating AI in their product, but so far no data is used, and all the AI features are simply summarizers and research assistants. What is this supposed to prove?

I will make it simpler anyway:

What they wrote in a manifesto is a vague expression of what will happen in a non-specified future. If the whole AI fad will fade in a year, it won’t happen. In addition, we have no idea of what specifically they are going to build, we have no idea of what the impact on privacy is, what are the specific implementation choices they will take and many other things. Without all of this, your dystopian interpretation is purely arbitrary.

And this is rather ironic too:

Ironic how? Saying that a document is binding doesn’t mean blindly trusting it, it means that I know the power it holds, and it means it gives the power to get their ass audited and potentially fined on that basis if anybody doesn’t trust them.

Your attempt to mess with the meaning of my sentences is honestly gross. Being aware of the fact that a company is accountable has nothing do to with blind trust.

Just to sum it up, your arguments so far are that:

• they mention a “future” in which AI will be personalized and can act as our personal assistant, using data, in the manifesto.
• they integrated AI features in the current offering

This somehow leads you to the conclusion that they are building some dystopian nightmare in which they get your data and build a bubble around you.

My arguments are that:

• the current AI features are completely stateless and don’t depend on user data in any way (this capability is not developed in general and they use external models).
• the current features are very user-centric and the users have complete agency in what they can customize, hence we can only assume that similar agency will be implemented in AI features (in opposition to data being collected passively).
• to strengthen the point above, their privacy policy is not only great, but it’s also extremely clear in terms of implications of data collected. We can expect that if AI features “personalized” will come up, they will maintain the same standard in terms of clarity, so that users are informed exactly on the implication of disclosing their data. This differentiate the situation from Facebook, where the privacy policy is a book.
• the company business model also gives hope. With no other customer to serve than the users, there are no substantial incentive for kagi to somehow get data for anything else. If they can be profitable just by having users paying, then there is no economical advantage in screwing the users (in fact, the opposite). This is also clearly written in their doc, and the emphasis on the business model and incentive is also present in the manifesto.

The reality is: we don’t know. It might be that they will build something like you say, but the current track record doesn’t give me any reason to think they will. I, and I am sure a substantial percentage of their user base, use their product specifically because they are good and because they are user-centric and privacy focused. If they change posture, I would dump them in a second, and a search engine is not inherently something that locks you in (like an email). At the moment they deliver, and I am all-in for supporting businesses that use revenue models that are in opposition to ad-driven models and don’t rely on free labor. I do believe that economic and systemic incentive are the major reasons why companies are destroying user-privacy, I don’t thing there is any inherent evil. That’s why I can’t really understand how a business which depends on users paying (kagi) can be compared to one that depends on advertisers paying (meta), where users (their data) are just a part of a product.

Like, even if we assume that what’s written in the manifesto comes to life, if the data is collected by the company and only, exclusively, used to customize the AI in the way I want (not to tune it to sell me shit I don’t need), within the scope I need, with the data I choose to give, with full awareness of the implication, where is the problem? This is not a dystopia. The dystopia is if google builds the same tool and tunes it automatically so that it benefits whoever pays google (not users, but the ones who want to sell you shit). If a tool is truly making my own interests and the company interest is simply that I find the tool useful, without additional goals (ad impressions, visits to pages, product sold), then that’s completely acceptable in my view.

And now I will conclude this conversation, because I said what I had to, and I don’t see progress.

The manifesto is actually a future vision. And again, you are interpreting it in your own way.

At the same time, you are completely ignoring:

• what the product already does
• the features they actually invested to build
• their documentation in which they stress and emphasize on privacy as a core value
• their privacy policy in which they legally bind themselves to such commitment.

Because obviously who cares of facts, right? You have your own interpretation of a sentence which starts with “in the future we will have” and that counts more than anything.

Also, can you please share to me the quote where I say that I need to blindly trust the privacy policy? Thanks.

Because I remember to have said in various comments that the privacy policy is a legally binding document, and that I can make a report to a data protection authority if I suspect they are violating them, so that they will be audited. Also, guess what! The manifesto is not a legally binding document that they need to respond of, the privacy policy is. Nobody can hold them accountable if “in the future there will not be” all that stuff that are mentioned in the manifesto, but they are accountable already today for what they put in the privacy policy.

Do you see the difference?

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.

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?

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.

… 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.