3 ms·
No, I only have their word to go on, but at least they explicitly say that they are avoiding censorship[0], while DDG are quite open with it. I also did some s
by valvar 4y ago
No, I only have their word to go on, but at least they explicitly say that they are avoiding censorship[0], while DDG are quite open with it.
I also did some smell tests by searching controversial topics, and Kagi does seem to present a more mixed bag of sources than DDG and Google on the first page of results.
[0] https://kagi.com/faq#censoring https://kagi.com/faq#censoring
- anglerfife 4y agoHow is a mixed bag of sources a good thing? A collection of reputable sources would be better. There's no such thing as neutral however breitbart and fox news (both of whom I've seen come up in searching) actively spread disinformation however because they're news sites aligned with the american right downranking them is a political statement despite the list of lies they've spread. Theres no winning as half the people want to be lied to and it has so obviously been weaponized.
- ekianjo 4y ago> actively spread disinformation however because they're news sites aligned with the american right If you think disinformation comes from one side you have been brainwashed good
- numeri 4y agoIf you think the distribution of disinformation is uniform across both sides, you've also been brainwashed good. There is plenty of peer-reviewed research on this, but here are two that I found after brief searching: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/right-and-left-partisanship-predicts-asymmetric-vulnerability-to-misinformation/ https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/right-and-left... https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud
- ekianjo 4y agoLove the strawman. I reply to your claim that its binary by saying its obviously not and you shift goalposts by talking distributions which was never the point.