Unfortunately, Kagi works with Russian companies and pays them money, which in my book is a no-no. I do not want any of my money to contribute to the Russian economy in any way, because I know what is happening to people in Ukraine.
(I was a Kagi subscriber, no more, because of this)
Kagi founder here. I notice you bring this up consistently in Kagi discussions.
A search engine's job is to deliver the best possible results. We evaluate API sources on search quality, not geopolitics. Yandex represents 2% of our costs but contributes meaningfully to search quality - removing it would harm all users while having minimal economic impact. We've used their API since 2019 and evaluate all sources purely on technical merit: result quality, latency, privacy terms, and legal compliance. The moment politics influences search results is the moment we stop being a search engine.
I cancelled my kagi subscription upon seeing this response.
I donate to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia. I lost a family member to Russian artillery as well while providing medical aid to civilians. I very much do not want my dollars to fund the very thing that my donations are intended to defend against.
I'm going to assume you run a similar policy with Chinese search providers. After seeing Chinese warships off the Taiwanese Coast running invasion exercises (a roughly $30 billion annual expenditure for them last I checked), I very much want to minimize my funding of them.
I understand the argument you are making but war is far more serious than "politics".
I take it you don't use any phones, especially no apple products then, right? After all, apples gigantic sponsorship of the Chinese government is well covered at this point.
Clothing is also a no-no, right? After all, there is *literally no way to purchase clothing from any store that hasn't been produced - in part - by effective slave labor and Chinese machinery.
Really, consumer boycott of nations is infeasible in a global market. The only thing you're doing is virtue signalling.
This is a silly argument. Clothing is not optional; Kagi is. They are deciding to go without an optional good because they don't like what they spend their money on. I applaud them for it and I like Kagi.
You're asking a question they aren't. They take issue with the specific spending of money on Yandex. So the question is "which search engine isn't spending money on Yandex"
No, the initial comment did also reference China, which Google and Microsoft are also in bed with... albeit to a much less degree then Apple.
Hence he's on point, as ddg ultimately uses bing under the hood, pretty much all search engines would be out.
A plausible argument could be that you're only using it, not actively giving them money (at least for Google/MS). It'd still call that hypocrisy though, if someone made such an argument.
Conversely, Vlad’s strong sense of engaging in ethical business and utmost respect for and understanding of what it means to remain neutral is precisely why I use Kagi, and why I believe Kagi will beat Google in the long run—why I invested in Kagi.
There appears to be a conflict between ethics. Some won’t let a cent of their money go to Russia. Some will as they value their search engine and freedom of information.
You and Kagi have picked one over the other.
Perhaps they don't, but some do. And those who avoid Amazon or Google might be fine with using Russian companies.
We don't have the mental bandwidth to support every good cause or the capacity to avoid every bad player. That doesn't mean that you have to be fine with and use products from every company/country.
The point is not to not try and support causes you believe in, it’s about acting in an internally consistent way.
If you don’t support war, then you cannot indirectly support anything that has any part in supporting any war anywhere. You can’t pick and choose which wars and products are convenient enough to stand against while funding Google’s amoral corporate, US tax paying, attention machine because you won’t use a product which almost certainly undoubtably has contributed to vastly less harm than Kagi has (assuming we take as granted the premise that purchasing products of a company that is headquartered in a country at war has any political or financial significance whatsoever so as to be culpable for causing harm in the first place).
I mean you can, but the idea that you’re truly doing any good is entirely vapid. You’re just lying to yourself to feel good.
I guess most people probably don’t care if someone lies to themself to feel good. But to go piss on some product because they don’t have quite the same moral alignment as you do is rather silly and it’s entirely fair to see people calling this immature behavior out.
Wait, can't I just not support _this_ war? I don't think the invasion of a peaceful democratic country is OK, so that means it is morally inconsistent for me to believe it was right and just for the allies to go to war with the axis powers?
> You can’t pick and choose which wars and products are convenient enough to stand against while funding Google’s amoral corporate, US tax paying, attention machine because you won’t use a product which almost certainly undoubtably has contributed to vastly less harm than Kagi has.
What you're saying here is that, since it's hard to stand for the right things, you shouldn't try standing for anything. If only those without sin could do good, we really should just pack it in.
> But to go piss on some product because they don’t have quite the same moral alignment as you do is rather silly and it’s entirely fair to see people calling this immature behavior out.
Listen, there are some people who won't feel good about a product if they think it's going to make tomorrow worse. It's, shockingly, not about Kagi, or about you, but strictly about how some people wish to govern _themselves_. Kagi can make the decisions it wants, it's not a moral entity, it's a for-profit company which means its sole purpose is to seek profits. In fact, I'm not even trying to pick on Kagi here, generally speaking I think my values align with the product on offer.
The point stands though that corporations get to make decisions as to whether or not the ethical dilemmas they face are worth the customers (future and present) they'll lose over it.
> ...while funding Google’s amoral corporate, US tax paying, attention machine because you won’t use a product which almost certainly undoubtably has contributed to vastly less harm than Kagi has.
Why it's particularly relevant for Kagi to care about this sort of thing is that the users, like myself, who do not use Google and are willing to go through pains (be it worse results or monthly fees) to not fund them, are exactly the kind of person who won't use a service for not divesting from the Russian economy.
You are welcome to govern yourself however you want. I said that. But if you actually think that Kagi is going to make tomorrow worse then all I can say is, “good luck out there”.
I prefer to use my valuable time and limited attention supporting causes I care about in ways that actually matter and are consistent. I don’t need to “govern myself” to be happy. I don’t extend moral culpability for harmful actions beyond those who commit them. I don’t hold the inventor of the scientific method responsible for all the harm scientific discoveries have caused.
It's odd to put this as some kind of inconceivable checkmate. I have several family members that avoid Amazon, some strictly, some when possible, some when convenient. This thread is about Kagi, of course people boycott Google. 'Degoogling' has been in the zeitgeist for years.
Evaluating other responses, people complain over Yandex, but asking for the very same experience. Only different in the illusion filtering happens to their wishes.
Would you ever consider switching out Yandex for something like the Brave Search API or Bing (if they aren't already part of the mix)?
While I do understand your position, it's important to understand including Yandex in your index doesn't mean that politics aren't influencing your results; it's not an apolitical position.
By that definition precisely noting is apolitical. And that’s really the point, isn‘t it? Kagi values search quality over virtue signaling in line with whichever way the wind is blowing.
Also, do Kagi’s Russian users deserve to be punished because of their leader’s actions? Is that virtuous?
> By that definition precisely noting is apolitical.
I'm with you
> Kagi values search quality over virtue signaling in line with whichever way the wind is blowing.
Wait, when did I suggest that they adopt values based on "whichever way the wind is blowing"? I'm just asking them to not support the economy of a country whose invaded another free and democratic country for the purpose of expansion, and has engaged in war crimes to do so. People are upset about this, not because it is trendy, but because they think it is wrong.
There isn’t a moral truth here. It’s just politics. Prove to me that Kagi’s support of Yandex has uniquely enabled a Russian war crime and maybe we could start having a real discussion about whether Kagi is morally culpable. Prove that Kagi is committing more harm than my other options. Prove that Kagi is committing more harm than the good that quality search results provides the world, provides people who are fighting and speaking against the war.
Otherwise yes this level of guilt by hand waving association based on making you feel good in the moment is exactly the definition of virtue signaling.
If you can't judge that funding war criminals is a wrong action, you should reconsider your ability to do so morally
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, startup founders aren't exactly known for putting anything else above money and their ideas, particularly actual human well-being.
Consider that you, too, will have to live in the world that you help create, including the consequences of "a mere 2%"
> If you can't judge that funding war criminals is a wrong action
Yandex does not equal Russia though.
The United States gov't has participated in what many consider illegal acts of aggression (i.e., war crimes) and do so using tools like PowerPoint. Is it moral to accept Microsoft as a client?
I'm not saying I know the right answer here, but the purity test you're proposing seems quite stringent.
You'll be shocked to learn that some people avoid US products for exactly the reasons you've mentioned. Right now some avoid Israeli stuff for similar reasons. And so it shouldn't be a shock to learn that some people don't want their money to end up in pockets of Russians and their state (via taxes).
Okay, propaganda, sure. Propaganda is a different argument - it compromises the quality of search - and I will happily agree with you. I want to emphasize, that the claim was: using Yandex through Kagi is supporting war criminals. Which war criminals? Which war crimes is Yandex complicit in? I plainly do not accept that propaganda === war crimes.
>I plainly do not accept that propaganda === war crimes
I'd say propaganda is often necessary, and usually successful, at allowing governments to execute war crimes. I think most modern war crimes are lied out of existence by propaganda outlets like Yandex (or any number of US news outlets at other points in recent history).
They are accused of sending Ukrainian users data to the Russian state.
Also, ‘In August 2024, the company was accused of collaborating with the Federal Security Service (FSB) to direct users to fake websites for the Freedom of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps, groups composed of Russian supporters of Ukraine. The websites collected data from Russians who may be interested in joining the organisations and supporting Ukraine.’
Following that reasoning, is Gazprom invading a country? No? Then I guess we should buy their gas. Why not send the latest and greatest ASML lithography machine to Mikron? It's not like they're actually launching the missile using the processor they manufacture.
It would be interesting to know people’s views on sanctions against Russia, as these are a key tool against Russia and the logic is much as you have described here.
My guess is that HN users don’t support sanctions.
In my estimation, Facebook/Meta and Google/Alphabet both inflict more damage on the world than Kagi. I trust that you judge them equally harshly and do not use them?
Well, the US and a lot of the US companies fund the Palestinian genocide, and you're OK with that, so people support the genocides they like. So don't be a hypocrite.
funny enough I asked what this controversy was about to GPT 4.1 and it said Kagi now allows people to disable the Yandex source from their account settings. That's not true, unfortunately.
The "Google Alert" comment feels unnecessarily dismissive of a legitimate user concern.
The core issue for many, myself included, is not about asking a search engine to make "geopolitical judgments" in its search rankings. Rather, it's a question of corporate ethics in selecting business partners. The decision of which companies to partner with and fund is inherently separate from the algorithm that ranks search results.
> you bring this up consistently in Kagi discussions
I do — I disagree strongly with your choices, which is why I cancelled my subscription and why I bring this up. It's doubly sad, because I liked your service.
I've subscribed to Kagi since 2023, and this response really gives me pause. Any support for totalitarian regimes like Russia or North Korea definitely forces me to reconsider being a customer.
> Everything is politics, whether you acknowledge it or not. And right now you are taking a political stance.
No, not everything is politics.
Kagi is a well-made tool, and part of the reason why it works so well is exactly because it tries not to be political. Thanks to the founder's reply, we know it ranks its sources based on utility to its users. Part of being a search engine is allowing the users to be exposed to all the information available on a given topic. The user decides how to use the tool.
I am (as many europeans) against the war that Russia started against Ukraine, but that shouldn't prevent me from looking into what Russia is saying about it should I desire to do so, and having the Yandex integration means that I, the user, am in control whether I want to click on the Yandex result or not, but at least I'm aware it exists. If the platform would decide to shut out Yandex, it wouldn't make the problem disappear, it would just remove your awareness and knowledge of it.
One of the criticisms of Yandex is that it sanitises its results to align with Kremlin wishes. If accurate, how does that help you?
For what it’s worth, I went to Yandex and tried searching Bucha, Navalny and a few other topics and the results seemed inline with Google, so I’m wondering about the accuracy of that claim (or is it a geographic thing?).
I don't know if you should drop Yandex or if the alternatives are better or not, but I feel that you're missing the point here.
You're looking at this purely from a technical point of view. That makes sense when trying to make the best search engine, I guess, but humans are not machines. You talk about geopolitics and search quality, when the guy you replied to is thinking about indirectly funding a machine that is bringing war to a country and killing people (I have friends that have been affected by it).
Your profile says you're "humanizing the web". To do that, we can't ignore what humans are and how we work.
I understand your perspective and don't take these concerns lightly - I was a refugee of two wars myself, so I'm deeply aware of human suffering and its impact. Our mission to humanize the web means ensuring universal access to human knowledge, regardless of politics, delivered with clarity and protected with integrity - for everyone, regardless of their location or circumstances. A search engine that filters sources by political approval becomes something else entirely - it becomes a biased information provider that denies the very universal access we're fighting for. The most humane thing we can do is build tools that serve humans first by providing the best possible search results to everyone - before this conflict, after this conflict, and during all other 100+ armed conflicts taking place in the world today.
The thing to keep in mind is that for some people, and this includes some of your customers, there are things that are more important than your mission. Right now, some people avoid anything that is related to Israel. When the US invaded Iraq, some avoided US companies. I won't touch anything related to Musk after the two sieg heils and other things. The guy that complained clearly has an issue with what Russia is doing in Ukraine and doesn't want their money to end up in Russia.
It's a free market. You should do what you think it's right and then people will do the same with your product. Some will care more about search quality and pay, while others will care about the companies you decide to work with and use something else.
Would it be possible for users to opt out of Yandex, thus removing any Yandex results from their searches? We can do this with specific websites, why not yandex?
An upstream search index is not exactly a source and boy is that one politically biased. Given Russia's efforts towards destruction of civic society everywhere and replacing it with post-truth one, you very much risk compromising integrity by touching their products.
A leader who on principle legitimizes and pays companies that are literal tools of oppression will inevitably burn his customers. And isn't it funny how as a paying customer one still has as much say in this as with Google?
Where are your customers? Predominantly the West, likely the US? This is not a question of "geopolitical judgement" but rather of funding a regime that illegally invaded another country, one that is responsible for a lot of cyber crime, one that oppresses its own people and one that directly uses misinformation to sow chaos in other countries.
Apply this same argument to North Korea or Iran. Assuming that either contributed meaningfully to the quality of your search results, would you be comfortable sending money to companies based in Iran or North Korea?
You can hide behind your technocratic arguments for a while. Look to Google and Facebook to see where that ends.
It’s ironic the way you put it - the US has also invaded many countries, is responsible for a lot of cyber crime, and uses misinformation to sow chaos in other countries [1]. Should we all stop “funding“ the US? Somehow Ukranian lives are precious, but Iraqi and Bangladeshi lives are not?
I have no horse in this race - I’m neither American nor Russian, nor do I particularly love either country. But I am tired of US hypocrisy. I don’t understand how you all don’t see it - you’re all holed up in your cocoons and have no idea what’s actually going on in the world.
Some people do avoid US companies for the reasons you've mentioned.
People tend to care more about what they are familiar with. Someone in Zimbabwe probably cares more about the war in Sudan and avoids dealing with the countries involved than with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and use Russian products. Same with someone in Iran, they probably care more about Syria and Palestine, and avoid Israeli products while using Yandex.
Maybe it's hypocrisy, but humans don't have the capacity to support every victim of every war.
I have no dog in the US / Russia debate but i recognise that both have tremendous ability to affect the world. Same with China and i avoid chinese products where I can.
That said, i'm much less concerned about North Korea, compared to Russia. The latter has sophisticated weapons and military tactics. North Korea may be an evil state but its small population and economy mean that their ability to sow chaos is limited.
Exact same argument with Sudan, the Houthis, etc. Iran is in the middle of this pack but Russia is far and away the most significant danger.
We don't even have to leave the African continent do understand that people being okay with and performing genocides, waging war, etc, isn't an exclusive American trait.
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact — Moscow divided Poland with Germany (1939), invaded Finland (1939), occupied Baltic States (1940) — for two years of WW2 Moscow was Germany ally. After WW2 Moscow occupied half of Europe for 45 years, countries become free less than 50 years ago. Moscow made North Korea and China regimes, still supports dictatorship across the world, occupies and annexes neighbors.
I don't think Russia has many neighbouring countries it can still invade, because it literally already did all of them (except Norway?). And with their size, they have a lot of neighbours. It's very comfortable to restrict your argument to the last 50 years, but the true story of Russia is completely different.
Worth noting that it’s about 2% of their search costs, so at most $0.20/mo of your bill is going to a Russia company (probably much less given they have a profit margin, employee costs, hosting costs, etc).
I like the idea of zero going to help Russian economy (and in turn the war), but a bunch of major companies also do fractional percent business with Russia which I just don’t know about. I don’t want to over penalize the small company that’s honest about it.
Do you personally sanction all countries that commit atrocities or is it specific to Russia? I don't care what you do or don't support with your money, but I'm genuinely curious about the mindset.
It is not possible for any one person to maintain 100% awareness of the entire planet, nor is it feasible for most people to simply live in the woods as a hunter-gatherer and take nothing from others who might do wrong elsewhere.
Once we accept that each of us is a human rather than a morally perfect literal supernatural angel, each of us must decide: If we cannot sanction all wrongdoers, does that mean we sanction no wrongdoers, or some?
If some, how do we decide which ones? One good metric would be "minimum impact on my own life". Another would be "amount of badness I'm personally aware of that entity doing". A third would be "how closely is the entity that I'm actually affecting ties to the group committing the atrocities?"
So; I personally sanction some countries that commit atrocities, one of which is Russia.
But you don't sanction the country directly, but any company that may or may not support the war in Ukraine.
To me that seems incredibly unfair to normal russian people(who still exists) while still buying oil from saudi arabia for example. Ask Kashoggi about it. Or any of those other poor bastards that got rid of without anyone caring about them.
In general, collective punishment is maybe not the way to improve the world I think. But targeted action or boycott.
> To me that seems incredibly unfair to normal russian people
Life's not fair. Among the unfairness experienced by a median Russian citizen, a random American's disinterest in supporting Yandex is probably low on their list.
> In general, collective punishment is maybe not the way to improve the world I think. But targeted action or boycott.
Sure. And again, here we are discussing the targeted action of boycotting Yandex and other corporations that are economic arms of the Russian government.
Ok, I did not know those specific details, thanks for providing. I was more talking general. Different story here it seems, but boycotting kagi because of it still sounds extreme to me.
> Once we accept that each of us is a human rather than a morally perfect literal supernatural angel, each of us must decide: If we cannot sanction all wrongdoers, does that mean we sanction no wrongdoers, or some?
But you should absolutely feel free to do so if you are so inclined!
I've never thought about it like that. To me, this is the most interesting part:
> If some, how do we decide which ones? One good metric would be "minimum impact on my own life". Another would be "amount of badness I'm personally aware of that entity doing". A third would be "how closely is the entity that I'm actually affecting ties to the group committing the atrocities?"
I wonder how different people decide on different metrics. For me, I probably don't even realize I'm deciding, making it mostly emotionally based I guess. Thanks for sharing with me!
Your question doesn't seem to be made in good faith - you seem to be implying that there is no way OP sanctions "all countries that commit atrocities," because of course they don't - that would be impractical. And furthermore, "committing atrocities" leaves a lot of wiggle room.
For most people there is a tradeoff that happens between being informed, the value provided by a service, and the ethical or moral cost.
For something like internet search, which is a commodity, it's quite easy to eschew one service for another.
Let's assume the question has been asked in good faith.
Yes, I actually do. And I lose money because of that, significant amounts, because I run a SaaS, where I (as an example) stopped service to all customers from Russia when the full invasion of Ukraine started. So it's not just about not paying, it's about refusing money as well.
It's easy to fall into the "whataboutism" trap and do nothing, because one can always say "but what about… [insert country here]". I decided to draw the line somewhere. With Russia it's actually easy: an unprovoked invasion of another country, targeting civilians, raping and murdering, there have been few wars where things were so black and white in the history of mankind. With other countries it's more difficult, but I still draw a line, and state-sanctioned genocide falls beyond that line.
Some people say one should not "punish" entire countries or populations for the actions of their leaders. I disagree. Leaders are leaders because they have been elected, and/or have support within the population. And in 21st century there should be consequences for choosing, supporting, or allowing the growth of power of a leader that is a war-raging lunatic.
You can also donate to the Ukrainian army directly.
Or to amnesty international. Or a tons of other options instead of collective punishment.
What is the ordinary russian against the war supposed to do? They don't even have a real option of leaving the country as most other states don't want them because they are russian.
In my opinion this helps Putin in his propaganda that the west just hates russia.
Majority of Russian Federation population support occupation of Ukraine - independent polls at the start of open invasion. They would stop only when faced consequences.
Just because you decide to do something, it doesn't mean that you have to do everything. Even if you wanted to, it's likely that you can't.
> In my opinion this helps Putin in his propaganda that the west just hates russia.
It does help him, but you're not going to support those who do nothing or feed the machine waging war just so Putin's propaganda gets a bit weaker.
If the average Russian doesn't understand that the reaction is due to their (well, mostly their governments) actions, then that's another problem that only them can fix.
Why should I?
How about not mixing up civilian and military targets?
Current trajectory is heading straight into total war, I simply would restrain on target military targets.
> It's easy to fall into the "whataboutism" trap and do nothing, because one can always say "but what about… [insert country here]". I decided to draw the line somewhere.
That's a good point. It's a nuanced topic and I was genuinely curious. I'm not involved in any international business with Russia, so it's interesting to hear about it from the perspective of someone affected by it financially.
This is like people who vigorously criticize Mozilla's moral failings while using Google Chrome. Heaven forbid we choose the option that is 2% evil instead of the one that is 98% evil.
Pretty much. Like everyone's saying... an absolute moral stance here is pretty much impossible to take.
Do I like that I'm contributing some cents a month into the economy of a country that's invaded another and sent people in that have literally raped infants to death? Uh, no.
Do I like that I'm contributing some cents a month to a company headed by someone that contributes to anti-gay causes and is a COVID skeptic and amplified COVID denial? Also no.
Are those contributions worse than using Google and contributing to their damage of society and the internet?
Are those contributions worse than using one of the AI providers who will gobble up power at absurd rates and contribute meaningfully to the slow death of the planet?
Are those contributions a meaningful concern compared to the fact that I work remotely creating value for a US company whose tax dollars end up going to support Israel and the genocide they're committing in Gaza?
I honestly have no idea. But I can't really see how "not using Yandex" is the absolute stance that everyone should be expected to take, all things considered.
It's a double whammy for me as I don't want to support Russia or the USA and I largely don't. But I also work in tech and need to get work done so I have to pick my battles, unfortunately.
"people", as in a perpetually offended tiny minority that want the entire world to bend to their comfort bubble. I'm fairly certain you're also one of the users that incessantly badgered them about excluding Brave's index, trying to portray it like the majority of Kagi users wanted that.
Vlad's stance is very refreshing in the current politically correct world: if including an index makes for better search results (= a better product for the users), it will be included.
I’m curious about your politics that are comfortable accepting a long list of invasions by the US, but somehow draw the line when it comes to this particular invasion.
I’m not saying it’s good to favour invasive countries, I’m just saying this is hypocritical. I have no particular love for either the US or Russia.
The Russian government is evil. Would you describe every person within its borders as evil? Every company?
Besides, if you spent some time on the kagifeedback forums you'd know that there is a particular brand of weird user there that wants to force Kagi to exclude or rejigger certain search results to be (effectively) more woke, which falls pretty much under the same umbrella as excluding whole indexes.
With Kagi you get the results as-is, and you get to personally ignore, downrank or block any of them you don't like. Much better than having a minority of users force all of us into their bubble.
I mean by all means, stick with Google and its ever-declining search quality and ever-expanding monopoly power while it builds AI tools for Israel to automate the slaughter of civilians, instead of a search engine startup that... has some minor partnership with another search engine that is located in a country where you don't like its government?
Russia is a dictatorship at war with Ukraine and the West by their own statements and actions. The idea they are leveraging tech companies for this purpose is ludicrous.
Inevitably at least one person downvoted this. Predictably so in a thread where people feel entitled to state what "most Europeans want". I am European. Of course I want this war to end today. The idea that a consumer who searches with Kagi is responsible for the war is just … misleading. This is not a question of "picking your battles". Establishment of a fair business model for search could even prevent future wars.
I wanted to point out that holding Kagi to your believed highest standards does lead to moral inconsistencies on a very material level if other providers of commodities are not held to the same standards.
That is not whataboutism.
Now - if you are European and still feel like downvoting me - go to the next MEP‘s local office first and ask them what they do about the facts stated in my first post. After that you are cordially invited to come back and still downvote my posts. Literally any of my posts. Oh you don’t know the address? Try the search engine of choice but don’t think to hard about the global implications of doing so…
Hell, a Spanish company just violated export sanctions and sold a machine used to make artillery barrels to Russia, and the Spanish government just shrugged. I'm not sure why Kagi has to be squeaky clean down to the last dollar when our own governments don't even have to meaningfully enforce their own sanctions.
This kind of whataboutism is what leads to the current sad state of the world. One can look at any moral choice issue, say "but what about… [insert something here]" and then proceed to ignore it and do nothing.
I choose to take moral stands. Yes, it might be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but I still choose to do so.
Having read the (rather disappointing) responses: all of them create some sort of artificial construct and result in doing nothing. I cannot do nothing.
I don't find moral stands particularly compelling, because they're an excuse to indulge in single-factor analysis, and make complex decisions using only the most basic criteria. Kagi produces a product you find useful, and they are trying to run an honest business model that doesn't focus on surveillance, charges a subscription, and earns that by working to return the best results.
> I don't find moral stands particularly compelling, because they're an excuse to indulge in single-factor analysis, and make complex decisions using only the most basic criteria.
I don't think this follows. While some people may use morals as an excuse to indulge in single-factor analysis, it's also entirely possible to use a moral stance as just one of many facets of evaluation.
> Is it really a net win to boycott them?
How much you value that facet is of course a personal decision.
I personally wonder how much less useful Kagi would really be without Yandex? Only Kagi knows, really.
> it's also entirely possible to use a moral stance as just one of many facets of evaluation.
Agreed. I'd need to see evidence of that, though. People are lazy, and they hide behind moral stances that are completely impractical to avoid having to think through the complex moral realities of the decisions we make. I don't have a lot of patience for this. If it's part of a multi-faceted analysis, then I'd expect to see that reflected in the comments the person makes. That's not true in this case.
> I personally wonder how much less useful Kagi would really be without Yandex? Only Kagi knows, really.
It's not your decision. Your decision is whether or not to pay Kagi for their service. Kagi produces a product that tries to provide the best value, and doesn't surveil you.
I've debated replying at all, but I am genuinely perplexed by this comment as a response to the quoted text:
> It's not your decision. Your decision is whether or not to pay Kagi for their service. Kagi produces a product that tries to provide the best value, and doesn't surveil you.
Did I imply it was my decision? I don't think I did. In fact, I pointed out that I don't even have the data available to me to evaluate the decision against the decision-making axis I provided (how much value is Yandex providing to the search results?) I am struggling to understand what you're trying to get across here besides contrarianism.
The hard fact of the matter is that you are obviously right: I cannot make decisions for Kagi. This was never in question. I can share my feedback with them and vote with my money.
> Kagi produces a product that tries to provide the best value, and doesn't surveil you.
I took your musing about the value of removing Yandex as creating a sort of spectrum of hypothetical products that could be offered, and then musing that some hypothetical one would be better than what exists. My point was: we can only select from what exists (or who exists), and then work with them from there. This was intended to tie into a larger theme I'd been trying to emphasize around choosing a product that's closest to your ideal, and then iterating towards perfection from there. The moral-stand approach is to go with free stuff because you don't want to give money to a non-perfect product/company. My assertion is that single-factor approach is something I see regularly, and an approach that leads to suboptimal choices in the long run.
My statement about Kagi was not indended to be someone we'd prove, but rather what the company themselves has stated as their intention, in contrast to their competitors, who don't even try.
Cory Doctrow has written up some findings with respect to how Google search results are intentionally bad. When Kagi uses Google's index via the API (that's paid!) they can produce a better search product than Google does. That's notable!
Assuming you seriously considered Kagi, and have now chosen not to pay them, where have you turned for search?
You don’t have a leg to stand on when dismissing criticism as whataboutisms, chief.
“Kagi is superior product and a vital competitor to breaking the search oligopoly — but what about their loose and indirect association with the Russian economy?!”
Oh you're taking a moral stance? So how do you get by without search? Because surely Google and Microsoft have many other moral problems, likely even the same ones.
But you're morally pure so you use no search at all right?
You can install an adblocker and Google/Microsoft end up losing money if you use them. You can't stop Kagi from sending money to Yandex, unless of course you stop using Kagi.
One big reason to use alternative search engines like Kagi is to try to break the search engine monopoly. A bit of a tangent, but I would argue that if search became revenue-neutral, Google would still continue to support and promote it. Control over search is incredibly valuable.
Happily the state of the world isn't the result of recognizing the state of the world, and attempting to avoid hypocrisy. Instead the world is a complex system that defies easy discussions on social media, motivated by overly simplistic and selectively applied moralism.
For example I'm able to compare the impact on the world of Google, AdSense, etc... and Kagi's partial reliance on Yandex. Something tells me that's going to be taken as another case of "whataboutism" rather than realism.
> Having read the (rather disappointing) responses: all of them create some sort of artificial construct and result in doing nothing.
The acknowledgement that issues are not one-dimensional is not artificial. Sincerely: you're deluding yourself that you're helping Ukraine by not subscribing to Kagi.
If we look at history, Russia government's capacity to withstand punishment of any kind in detriment to its own citizens is limitless. I applaud your determination but I wouldn't expect that to put any kind of pressure on Russia w.r.t its stance on the Ukraine invasion. Things need to get way uglier for Russia before its leaders take any corrective actions and I'd argue we'll never reach that threshold, sort of having (yet) another armed revolution of sorts (which I don't see happening either).
This thread's responses are a classic whataboutism. Instead of addressing this particular issue, people address others. I support motion for Kagi to drop Yandex integration, because of the reasons cited.
(I was a Kagi subscriber, no more, because of this)