https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.html

I tried finding API pricing for Google but it’s probably buried somewhere. They make it sound “free” but with usage limits, which surely Kagi exceeds? Either way, it’s probably on a “per-call” basis, and Google gets a lot less money that way compared to crapping out money driven search results.

“Our unique algorithms down-rank pages with a lot of ads and trackers (which we have found correlate with a decrease in content quality) and promote content from independent, ad-free sources and personal websites.”

I’m sure it’s not perfect, but my experience with Kagi has been very very good. With DuckDuckGo I’d often have to revert to Google to find what I was looking for, but not with Kagi.

I pay for Kagi, so my opinion might be clouded by confirmation bias.

My true fans will hang around for my year understanding.

Not YouTube because the ads come from the same “source”, so blocking that DNS would mean blocking the actual video, too. That’s my week understanding of it, at least.

Impressive

What does that have to do with this?

My seedbox accepts crypto payments through Coinbase. Coinbase recently started requiring personal info when paying.

While I appreciate the political sentiment, those people have nothing to do with this accident.

This accident was so preventable and there needs to be regulatory and cultural changes to prevent it from happening again.

Just horrible. There are so many safeguards to prevent this from happening. I’m very curious to find out more details on who’s to blame.

There’s no timestamp for when things go missing, though.

There’s a word for that: noncomedogenic. That means it doesn’t clog pores.

Face moisturizers try to be noncomedogenic. Other types of moisturizers don’t care as much.

Skin care isn’t a sham. Skin care is like anything else. Everyone is different. You have to find whatever works. For some people it’s very simple, and other people will find themselves going down a rabbit hole trying to improve their skin.

The creator of Lemmy is just one example. They remove a lot of content that isn’t hateful, just against their political ideology. I used that as an example of a private social media website which does a lot of censoring, even though the creators are sort of, somehow, outwardly against censoring? So everyone is human is my point.

The article in question is about hate speech, not political dissent. Hate speech is pretty widely moderated away on Lemmy, and I think a majority of people here are cool with that. Some here are arguing semantics which is fair. Censoring is censoring which is the definition of censoring. I’m in the camp that if someone online is threatening another person or group of people, that should be hidden/removed.

Are you saying it should be required by law to have a comment regarding removal of content?

Lemmy was created because Desaulines(sp?) got “censored” on reddit. Now he famously over-censors his darling instance lemmy.ml.

My point is just that nobody really thinks it should be a free for all. Everyone is human and doesn’t want to hear anything that they consider egregious, or in the case of lemmy.ml “against rule 2”.