So #Kagi is now partnering with #Brave, i.e. the company of Brendan Eich, who has been CEO at Mozilla for eleven days before he had to leave due to massive criticism of his homophobic views. Brave's most well-known product is a browser with its own cryptocurrency, co-designed by Eich.
A feedback post asking Kagi to reconsider has been closed by Kagi's founder Vladimir Prelovac because "Considering company x founder political views is not a factor in [their] evaluation".
https://kagifeedback.org/d/2808-reconsider-your-partnership-with-brave
Quite a controversial decision… I love Kagi though, but I don’t understand why they would want to drag Brave into this.
I’ve no stake in either Kagi or Brave (and have my own issues with Brave and their CEO), but “partnership” seems like a stretch of definition here assuming this is in reference to the Brave Search API being added as another source for search results. Am I missing something here?
We have added Brave Search API as an additional source of results. With this, Brave API joins the growing list of Kagi’s search sources, ensuring that if you can not find something on Kagi, it does not exist on the web. This will come at no additional cost to you.
To better understand (and definitely not dismissing your opinion), was Brave where you drew the line as a customer or was Google, Amazon, etc also of concern where Kagi pays for services?
Brave is great, it even lets you sync your browser session without having to use an email. And their android app lets you watch youtube vid without ads and in the background.
It along librewolf are the only browsers that come with good default privacy settings.
Edit: Looks like I struck a nerve on some people lol
Fair enough. IMO, Brave isn’t a big enough player compared to many other companies in the enterprise space used by Kagi (both that we know of as consumers and wouldn’t know of without being an employee with knowledge of their internal SaaS agreements) that Kagi’s specific use case of Brave singularly would have been the deal breaker (for me).
Personally, getting that granular with money flow quickly becomes untenable as a consumer as every business will, to some degree, end up paying for some level of service from the companies we hope to lessen the power of. As a consumer example, I may really dislike how Google is influencing the standards of consumer data privacy in the world and choose not to pay for or use Google products/services directly, but I couldn’t imagine boycotting all companies that use Google Workspace internally for email, docs, sheets, etc.
Kagi seems to be a main player that’s opening the conversation of paying for internet search when the world is used to a standard of “free” search, so saying they can’t utilize the existing search data sources is going to make that experience dead in the water. We need ripples if we hope for change.
Edit: sudneo‘s comment actually summed up my thoughts pretty well.
In my personal opinion, such unrealistic ethical requirements end up being a reactionary choice as they will ultimately impede new - better - players to emerge and will leave the existing - worse - dominating.
I’ve no stake in either Kagi or Brave (and have my own issues with Brave and their CEO), but “partnership” seems like a stretch of definition here assuming this is in reference to the Brave Search API being added as another source for search results. Am I missing something here?
Kagi December 28, 2023 Release Notes
the part where Brave Search API is paid, and some people (including myself) don’t want their money to contribute to Brave’s business.
To better understand (and definitely not dismissing your opinion), was Brave where you drew the line as a customer or was Google, Amazon, etc also of concern where Kagi pays for services?
I dislike Brave because they cultivated a not-so-deserved reputation. I see newcomers to privacy being recommended this and it’s just sad.
Brave is great, it even lets you sync your browser session without having to use an email. And their android app lets you watch youtube vid without ads and in the background.
It along librewolf are the only browsers that come with good default privacy settings.
Edit: Looks like I struck a nerve on some people lol
You’re comment implied it’s a good privacy centric browser, which is wrong.
It actually is, it comes with good fingerprinting protection by default.
https://privacytests.org/
deleted
Who is the brave employee that runs it? privacytest is actually a open source test that you can run in your browser and has its own repo.
Good fingerprinting protection != good privacy.
Alright what makes a browser good for privacy if fingerprinting does not count? (it does but I want to hear what you will say).
I drew the line at Brave.
Fair enough. IMO, Brave isn’t a big enough player compared to many other companies in the enterprise space used by Kagi (both that we know of as consumers and wouldn’t know of without being an employee with knowledge of their internal SaaS agreements) that Kagi’s specific use case of Brave singularly would have been the deal breaker (for me).
Personally, getting that granular with money flow quickly becomes untenable as a consumer as every business will, to some degree, end up paying for some level of service from the companies we hope to lessen the power of. As a consumer example, I may really dislike how Google is influencing the standards of consumer data privacy in the world and choose not to pay for or use Google products/services directly, but I couldn’t imagine boycotting all companies that use Google Workspace internally for email, docs, sheets, etc.
Kagi seems to be a main player that’s opening the conversation of paying for internet search when the world is used to a standard of “free” search, so saying they can’t utilize the existing search data sources is going to make that experience dead in the water. We need ripples if we hope for change.
Edit: sudneo‘s comment actually summed up my thoughts pretty well.