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.
I am talking to you in the best of faith I can have with someone that seems like they’re harassing people that in my opinion are just here providing good content. It seems ridiculous. I wanted to make my opinion known. I have no agenda I’m trying to push. I don’t work for kagi or google, or any other company that would benefit from something like this.
If this is going to devolve into a deposition on whether I’m talking to you in good faith or not, then I think we’re done. I’ll be on the lookout for any possible shilling.
No, you’re talking at me. Because if you were talking to me, you would accept more than only the yes answer to a yes or no question. But you only accept yes.
Ok cool. Apparently nobody likes being called out, do they. Welp, I accept your answer, and since you act in such good faith, I won’t be surprised to see a disclaimer from you on any post or comment that contains the name of a for profit company here on Lemmy because it’s likely shilling. They will feel your wrath!
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.
Lol likewise.
I am talking to you in the best of faith I can have with someone that seems like they’re harassing people that in my opinion are just here providing good content. It seems ridiculous. I wanted to make my opinion known. I have no agenda I’m trying to push. I don’t work for kagi or google, or any other company that would benefit from something like this.
If this is going to devolve into a deposition on whether I’m talking to you in good faith or not, then I think we’re done. I’ll be on the lookout for any possible shilling.
No, you’re talking at me. Because if you were talking to me, you would accept more than only the yes answer to a yes or no question. But you only accept yes.
Ok cool. Apparently nobody likes being called out, do they. Welp, I accept your answer, and since you act in such good faith, I won’t be surprised to see a disclaimer from you on any post or comment that contains the name of a for profit company here on Lemmy because it’s likely shilling. They will feel your wrath!