this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
155 points (69.5% liked)

Privacy

32120 readers
415 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I'm not impressed with Kagi. I was lied to by someone at Kagi when I asked a question about their using geo-location data.

(Well, technically not lied to, but it was clear they were being deliberately evasive and deceptive, which didn't impress me much, since it's a paid service I was considering.)

Edit.

Obviously, my take may be biased, so I've added screenshots from the exchange I had with Kagi, but I've blotted out all names for privacy. Even though this left a bad taste in my mouth, I hope I'm not depicting this unfairly, so now you can decide for yourself.

Edit: If you're tempted to respond in bad faith, go annoy someone else. I'm not taking the bait, I'll just block your ass.

Edit Part 2: Why do all my comments attract the most insufferable neckbeards?

A. It's clear why I found it deceptive since he was being a pedant about what constitutes search results (if a widget is summoned by a search term -- which didn't request it btw -- then that widget is part of the results. It's batshit looney to think otherwise)

B. But I literally posted screenshots for full disclosure and for the sake of honesty -- and I'm still getting losers posting cringe in response. Fucking suburbanite straight white male energy stfu

C. Get blocked, fuckwits. If I wanted your opinion, I'd ask.

[–] 4vr@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which part of that replay was deceptive?

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't think that's (intentionally) deceptive, it seems like two people talking past each other... I've been frustrated with customer support at a lot of places, I don't take it to mean those places are bad though. Good customer support is expensive and hard.

Thanks for sharing though, I'll keep that in the back of my mind.

Edit: I'm also curious why you care if they serve you geolocated results? That might be part of what the support agent was confused by.

... also maybe tone it down a bit, I don't think that other guy was trying to bait you and get you all hyped up.

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

I want a search engine that does not use any location data whatsoever to manipulate results because I see it as an extremely problematic practice. For example, someone who lives in my area would be more likely to see agencies and interests that align with fascism, since this is a heavily fascist state.

This, and it doesn't seem like a big ask to have a search engine solely respond to deliberate input from the user, so I'm not sure why I need to defend searching for such a thing. The agent could have simply disclosed that they do use locational data to provide their services, and I would have moved on. Instead, he tried to dodge the question. Not only that, but he became very pedantic about what constitutes a "search." In my interpretation, any widgets or any results whatsoever that use locational data would fall under this umbrella. It is needlessly pedantic to claim that it is something else entirely, since as you can see it was presented to me in response to my entering a keyword, a keyword which I might add did not request a widget at all.

[–] Linus_Torvalds@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

While I feel like that in this case it is a non-problem, I could see while someone would like the ability to de-localize search results. Also agree on the rude aspect, thats just unworthy of such a civil discussion.

[–] ram@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Legitimately, what part of that was deceptive? They outright stated that those specialized widgets you can't disable. Your post here is far more misleading in comparison.

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do all my comments attract the most insufferable neckbeards?

A. It's clear why I found it deceptive since he was being a pedant about what constitutes search results (if a widget is summoned by a search term -- which didn't request it btw -- then that widget is part of the results. It's batshit looney to think otherwise)

B. But I literally posted screenshots for full disclosure and for the sake of honesty -- and I'm still getting losers posting cringe in response. Fucking suburbanite straight white male energy stfu

C. Get blocked, fuckwit. If I wanted your opinion, I'd ask.

[–] ram@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the most insufferable neckbeards

https://lemmy.one/pictrs/image/b7ad3f91-d781-4085-9757-873ed7e6f4ee.jpeg

he was being a pedant about what constitutes search results

You mean they were being precisely accurate

Fucking suburbanite straight white male energy stfu

I'm not male

If I wanted your opinion, I’d ask

You posted to a public forum, but man you've really got an attitude about any contest to what you've said.