Comment by ceejayoz
7 months ago
But your AI is... wrong. The article contains clear criticisms of search quality and privacy concerns around a CEO who says things like "people who really need anonymity are very rare. probably elss than a 100 in the entire world."
Not sure how that contradicts Claude's conclusions. Also, he's right. I might like anonymity but it is absolutely a 'want', not 'need'.
You asked your AI if there was "any discussion of privacy", and it said no. That's clearly incorrect, and you've now changed the goalpost massively to disagreement personally with that discussion.
Here, I asked Claude about it, since you like that approach.
> A CEO of a search engine states "people who really need anonymity are very rare. probably less than a 100 in the entire world". Is this concerning from a privacy perspective?
> Yes, this statement by the CEO of a search engine company is quite concerning from a privacy perspective for several reasons:
> 1. Underestimating the need for anonymity: The claim that only a few people in the world "really need anonymity" is a gross underestimation. There are many legitimate reasons why individuals may need anonymity, such as whistleblowers, journalists, activists, victims of abuse, members of persecuted groups, and even ordinary citizens who value their privacy.
> 2. Privacy as a fundamental human right: Privacy is widely recognized as a fundamental human right. By dismissing the need for anonymity, the CEO is essentially disregarding the right to privacy for a large segment of the population.
> 3. Potential conflict of interest: As the CEO of a search engine company, which collects and monetizes user data, there is a potential conflict of interest. Downplaying the importance of anonymity and privacy could be seen as a way to justify the company's data collection practices.
> 4. Centralization of power: The statement reflects a concerning centralization of power, where a single entity (the search engine company) gets to decide who "really needs anonymity" and who doesn't. This goes against the principles of a free and open internet.
> 5. Chilling effect: Such statements from a prominent tech leader could have a chilling effect on individuals who seek anonymity for legitimate reasons, as it may discourage them from exercising their right to privacy.
> Overall, this statement by the CEO reflects a concerning lack of understanding or appreciation for the importance of privacy and anonymity in a free and democratic society. It underscores the need for strong privacy protections, decentralized systems, and a broader recognition of the fundamental right to privacy for all individuals, regardless of their specific circumstances.
As a follow-up...
> How do you feel about the claim "I might like anonymity but it is absolutely a 'want', not 'need'."
> I would disagree with the blanket claim that anonymity is absolutely a "want" and not a "need" for everyone. While that may be true for some people, there are many legitimate scenarios where anonymity can be a crucial need, not just a want...
> blah blah blah
> While anonymity may just be a casual preference for some, denying that it can be a critical need for others is concerning. It dismisses the reality that millions face real threats to their safety, freedom or even lives which anonymity helps protect against. Reducing it to just a "want" is dismissive of these legitimate needs.
I see our main disagreement being rooted in your use of the phrase "for everyone". It disregards the fact "rare" means exactly, 'some people'.
I do not read the attitude at Kagi to be downplaying the importance of privacy. To me it seems like a mature realization of the limits of online life. Anonymity is very expensive. Try to buy something online if you doubt it.
I disagree with your interpretation of Vlad's position but, I'm cool with your seeing it differently. I suggest you stick with Google and their much better () attitude toward privacy.
ps, I 100% could prompt Claude to rebut every sentence in your post. I do like that approach when it is productive. Except that I decided to talk back to all of you, Claude saved me the time it would take to interpret the original rant. I consider saving time to be a good use. Of course, you probably had fun playing with my text and Claude, so good for you.
1 reply →