Technology

37737 readers

724 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

Why I Lost Faith in Kagi (d-shoot.net)

submitted 7 months ago by noodlejetski@lemm.ee to c/technology@beehaw.org

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

follow-up Mastodon thread from the author: https://hackers.town/@lori/112255132348604770

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Someone disagreeing with you is not the same as attacking you.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Suggesting I'm victim blaming is an ad-hominem attack 🙃

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You wrote:

The fact that a CEO took time out to try and engage and discuss this users fears and concerns should be applauded.

The context of the post was that the CEO contacted them and then kept contacting them after being told to stop. You are cheering on a CEO repeatedly contacting someone to tell them why their opinion was wrong. You are criticizing the person who was harassed by saying the person who harassed them should be applauded.

You were victim blaming, and they even pointed it out kindly.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Let's look at events objectively.

Person A: Doesn't like something and so publicly criticises it.

Person B: Asks for an opportunity to defend the thing and themselves.

Person A: Says no

Person B: Insists

Person A: Then posts about person B on social media in a defamatory manner.

Social Media: Well person B is a CEO, so it's par for the course.

Me: Actually, it's par for the course that someone be given the right to defend themselves

You: You're victim blaming.

Me: 🥴

Honestly, I don't give a shit either way. I don't even know the name or URL of the search engine and I doubt I'll ever meet Lori. I just posted my opinion on something that was in my feed. 🤦🏾‍♂️

[–] tracteurblinde@beehaw.org 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

"Objective" timeline
Omits the repeated communications that are the source of the discourse

Seems like you missed some things in your first read of the Mastodon thread. That might be why you're not getting the response you're expecting.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Me: Actually, it’s par for the course that someone be given the right to defend themselves

You still don't get it.