Attached: 4 images
As many of you know, I posted recently about my experiences and outlook on Kagi, the paid search engine. It's gotten some positive press recently, ironically right after I made my blog post about why I no longer liked or trusted it. This blog post was called "Why I Lost Faith In Kagi" and was a pretty simple quick collection of my thoughts that I primarily wrote so it'd be easier to find again later to link to people when discussing Kagi versus making it a fedi thread I couldn't search for easily later. Across the four social media platforms I linked this blog post on, I'd say it got a total of about 40 likes and few reblogs.
https://d-shoot.net/kagi.html
I say this because this morning I woke up to an email from Kagi's CEO, Vlad, who had seen the post and was upset about it. I have an email address listed on my blog (which is why I didn't bother removing it from these logs), which is what he sent his emails to. I am posting this entire email chain in this thread and will briefly post my thoughts about it, but I feel like it's something that needs to be seen. Please take note of the subject of the email as well (EDIT: It got cropped out sorry, the subject is "Fatih [sic] can not be lost"). Also, since the alt text would get extremely long with some of the transcripts, I've provided a text dump of the emails here for screen reader users and will offer a more abridged description in the alt text: https://d-shoot.net/files/kagiemails.txt
So in reading the comments from Lori there is a pretty good reason why the initial offer for a call was rejected, this was left out in the main body of the post. Their point was if a private conversation takes place, especially over a call where information isn’t recorded, then the CEO could claim whatever they want took place during that conversation.
Here is the quote, you can find it in the third comment from the top:
“1) If there’s one thing I know about online interactions, it’s not to let someone take you to Crime Scene Number Two. Having a private debate with Vlad about this would mean no witnesses and no accountability, meaning he could claim anything about the discussion. Even moreso when done through a call instead of text.”
So I do agree that it seems a bit hostile for a first response but it does seem to come from experience with these situations. You could give the CEO the benefit of the doubt and say that wasn’t his intentions, but if I was in Lori’s shoes I would have reacted the same way and not given the benefit of the doubt.
So in reading the comments from Lori there is a pretty good reason why the initial offer for a call was rejected, this was left out in the main body of the post. Their point was if a private conversation takes place, especially over a call where information isn’t recorded, then the CEO could claim whatever they want took place during that conversation.
Here is the quote, you can find it in the third comment from the top:
“1) If there’s one thing I know about online interactions, it’s not to let someone take you to Crime Scene Number Two. Having a private debate with Vlad about this would mean no witnesses and no accountability, meaning he could claim anything about the discussion. Even moreso when done through a call instead of text.”
So I do agree that it seems a bit hostile for a first response but it does seem to come from experience with these situations. You could give the CEO the benefit of the doubt and say that wasn’t his intentions, but if I was in Lori’s shoes I would have reacted the same way and not given the benefit of the doubt.