this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
109 points (83.0% liked)
Privacy
40045 readers
307 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
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
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
view the rest of the comments
That's not so much a filter bubble as it is noise reduction. No, I don't want to have Pinterest results in my search engine. No, I don't have an Instagram or Twitter account and therefore can't see the content there anyway. I am developer, so I want to raise the relevance of GitHub in my results.
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?
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.
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.
Which means you will simply decide not to use that feature and not give them that data?
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but you have drawn conclusions that are not in the quotes.
Let me quote:
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!).
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.
Let me reiterate on the above:
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:
?
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.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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:
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 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.
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.
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.