I briefly looked through user tal’s comment history, and found that they also italicized Google as a source of info in another comment. Does this mean they’re also shilling for Google? Imagine how pissed Kagi would be if they found out…
Maybe people shouldn’t promote either corporation this way? Or is that beyond the real of possibility and we should just accept that corporations will use people like this with quiet dignity?
Back to my original comment, I just don’t see how it was intended as a promotion. It was supportive to the comment to add context to the information contained thereof. It was literally one word in a long comment. No hyperlink. On top of that, most people don’t even know what Kagi is and there was no discernable effort to introduce or promote it.
What about that makes you so sure that they’re being used by a corporation? Should they have just listed the source as “internet search engine”?
If they “shill” for a not for profit search engine will you call that out as well?
What about that makes you so sure that they’re being used by a corporation?
Because… they are? Free advertising is free advertising even if that isn’t the intent. Just like everyone who ‘googles’ something is being used by Google as free advertising.
If they “shill” for a not for profit search engine will you call that out as well?
Of course not. Did you entirely miss my point about this being about capitalism or are you ignoring it in order to argue?
So by your logic, if I post information I found on Wikipedia and list it as a source, cool. But if I find information on Yahoo and list that as the source, then I’m shilling for capitalism and must be called out?
I’m not ignoring it. It just seems disingenuous. To me, it comes off as, “hide the source if it comes from an entity that makes money, because someone may be accidentally advertised to. Reduce context in order to avoid supporting a profitable entity. Professianal journalism is bad because the journalists get paid via subscriptions or ads. Fuck them for wanting a career in journalism.”
I hate ads as much as the next guy but realistically, how are they going to support themselves. Should I not post The Guardian articles (hope I’m not shilling here) since they make money to pay their journalists?
Yes, I think we do have to accept that mentioning a company’s name can have the effect of keeping them in the public consciousness, but so long as they exist and provide services that we interact with, we are going to need to refer to them somehow.
I agree that actual shilling is bad, and is something I do not want to see here, but I just don’t understand or agree on your criteria for shilling apparently. At best, it could have possibly been shilling. But then by that same logic, it would apply to such an enormously broad range of conversation. Now we’re just walking talking shilling machines.
And then you want to call it out every single time? With no reasonable proof that they were intentionally shilling? I just think that’s going too far.
Why do you think this is about safety and not just wanting there to be one space on the internet where people aren’t shilling for corporations?
It was a joke, mate.
I briefly looked through user tal’s comment history, and found that they also italicized Google as a source of info in another comment. Does this mean they’re also shilling for Google? Imagine how pissed Kagi would be if they found out…
Maybe people shouldn’t promote either corporation this way? Or is that beyond the real of possibility and we should just accept that corporations will use people like this with quiet dignity?
Back to my original comment, I just don’t see how it was intended as a promotion. It was supportive to the comment to add context to the information contained thereof. It was literally one word in a long comment. No hyperlink. On top of that, most people don’t even know what Kagi is and there was no discernable effort to introduce or promote it.
What about that makes you so sure that they’re being used by a corporation? Should they have just listed the source as “internet search engine”?
If they “shill” for a not for profit search engine will you call that out as well?
Because… they are? Free advertising is free advertising even if that isn’t the intent. Just like everyone who ‘googles’ something is being used by Google as free advertising.
Of course not. Did you entirely miss my point about this being about capitalism or are you ignoring it in order to argue?
So by your logic, if I post information I found on Wikipedia and list it as a source, cool. But if I find information on Yahoo and list that as the source, then I’m shilling for capitalism and must be called out?
So yes, you are deliberately ignoring that despite me literally saying:
Sorry, the alternate Flying Squid who you pretend exists isn’t here.
I’m not ignoring it. It just seems disingenuous. To me, it comes off as, “hide the source if it comes from an entity that makes money, because someone may be accidentally advertised to. Reduce context in order to avoid supporting a profitable entity. Professianal journalism is bad because the journalists get paid via subscriptions or ads. Fuck them for wanting a career in journalism.”
I hate ads as much as the next guy but realistically, how are they going to support themselves. Should I not post The Guardian articles (hope I’m not shilling here) since they make money to pay their journalists?
Yes, I think we do have to accept that mentioning a company’s name can have the effect of keeping them in the public consciousness, but so long as they exist and provide services that we interact with, we are going to need to refer to them somehow.
I agree that actual shilling is bad, and is something I do not want to see here, but I just don’t understand or agree on your criteria for shilling apparently. At best, it could have possibly been shilling. But then by that same logic, it would apply to such an enormously broad range of conversation. Now we’re just walking talking shilling machines.
And then you want to call it out every single time? With no reasonable proof that they were intentionally shilling? I just think that’s going too far.
You:
Me:
You:
You literally asked me if I would do that. I explained very clearly to you that I would not, and you did not accept my answer.
You are not talking to me in good faith.