• Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.org
    41·
    9 months ago

    I think if a CEO repeatedly ignored my boundaries and pushed their agenda on me I would not be able to keep the same amount of distance from the subject to make such a measured blog post. I’d likely use the opportunity to point out both the bad behavior and engage with the content itself. I have a lot of respect for Lori for being able to really highlight a specific issue (harassment and ignoring boundaries) and focus only on that issue because of it’s importance. I think it’s important framing, because I could see people quite easily being distracted by the content itself, especially when it is polarizing content, or not seeing the behavior as problematic without the focus being squarely on the behavior and nothing else. It’s smart framing and I really respect Lori for being able to stick to it.

    • noodlejetski@lemm.eeOP
      11·
      9 months ago

      I think if a CEO repeatedly ignored my boundaries and pushed their agenda on me I would not be able to keep the same amount of distance from the subject to make such a measured blog post

      well, it’s the other way around. the blog post was first, then Vlad contacted them, then the thread was posted.

  • Canadian_Cabinet @lemmy.ca
    38·
    9 months ago

    I was thinking about trying Kagi but then they “partnered” with Brave, which pretty much instantly turned me off. But then their CEO made some response where he basically said “cry about it”. I can’t find the original forum reply so I think he edited it

  • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
    26·
    9 months ago

    I can see in the comments that most people are in support of the tooter, but I think they come across extremely rude and arrogant.

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

    Regarding the overarching issue that AI is being folded into everything. How is anyone surprised? A few years ago, it was machine learning and now it’s AI. There’s a lot of very clever people doing clever things and shoehorning them into our lives in dumb ways. What does that mean for the average person? That they are forced to accept it or go elsewhere, because the reality is that if all competitors present AI summaries when you do a search, consumers expect that.

    Hell, I expect my keyboard to know what I’m trying to say when I vaguely press along a single line and get upset when other keyboards can’t do it. And if at any point, I felt empowered enough to write a scathing blog post, I’d have the decency to have a conversation about it. But that’s just me.

    Be better Lori!

      • xyguy@startrek.websiteEnglish
        25·
        9 months ago

        That was my main take-away. You’re the CEO of the company. If someone writes a mean blog post about your business so what? Fix the issues with the product if they are legitimate things that need fixing. Otherwise leave people alone. If something constitutes libel then sue. Otherwise it’s just someones opinion which they are entitled to.

        No I have a bad opinion about him as well (please don’t reach out to me either).

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.techEnglish
          14·
          9 months ago

          First big lesson as a CEO. If they would have ignored this it would have made the rounds but faded into irrelevance. After all it is just a blog, on the fediverse. By engaging though it became very clickable, and now it’s going to hurt way worse than the original blog.

      • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
        91·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think it’s constructive to attack me because I don’t agree. I have written scathing blog posts about Mozilla. If the CEO reached out to me, I would feel a sense of responsibility to let them have their same. I’m not saying over the phone, I’m all for paper trails. But the way that Lori put themselves across, it didn’t resonate with me in a positive way.

        • snooggumsEnglish
          26·
          9 months ago

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

            • snooggumsEnglish
              24·
              9 months ago

              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·
                9 months ago

                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. 🤦🏾‍♂️

                • Tracteur Blindé@beehaw.org
                  17·
                  9 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.

                • snooggumsEnglish
                  15·
                  9 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.

    • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.org
      37·
      9 months ago

      I’d have the decency to have a conversation about it

      The blog post here isn’t about having a conversation about AI. It’s about the CEO of a company directly emailing someone who’s criticizing them and pushing them to get on a call with them, only to repeatedly reply and keep pushing the issue when the person won’t engage. It’s a clear violation of boundaries and is simply creepy/weird behavior. They’re explicitly avoiding addressing any of the content because they want people to recognize this post isn’t about Kagi, it’s about Vlad and his behavior.

      Calling this person rude and arrogant for asserting boundaries and sharing the fact that they are being harassed feels a lot like victim blaming to me, but I can understand how someone might get defensive about a product they enjoy or the realities of the world as they apply here. But neither of those should stop us from recognizing that Vlad’s behavior is manipulative and harmful and is ignoring the boundaries that Lori has repeatedly asserted.

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
        131·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think you can simply say something tantamount to “I think you’re an evil person btw pls don’t reply” then act the victim because they replied.

        If the CEO had been sending multiple e-mails etc, I would agree with you that it’s harassment, but from what I can see at any point the blogger could have just disengaged, but he seemed more interested in getting the last word in.

        • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.org
          18·
          9 months ago

          I don’t think you can simply say something tantamount to “I think you’re an evil person btw pls don’t reply” then act the victim because they replied.

          If they replied a single time, sure. Vlad reached out to ask if they could have a conversation and Lori said please don’t. Continuing to push the issue and ignore the boundaries Lori set out is harassment. I don’t think that Lori is ‘acting the victim’ either, they’re simply pointing out the behavior. Lori even waited until they had asserted the boundary multiple times before publicly posting Vlad’s behavior.

          If the CEO had been sending multiple e-mails

          How many do you expect? Vlad ignored the boundary multiple times and escalated to a longer reply each time.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      29·
      9 months ago

      Hi… Vlad? 🙄

      Two points:

      • “a CEO” is not something special, anyone can become CEO by simply registering a business.
      • When a person (“user”) tells you they don’t want you to contact them… shut it, period.

      This guy pushing his “explanations” against the user’s wishes, is a really bad sign for the company.

      • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
        91·
        9 months ago

        Very mature of you! 😮‍💨

        When you post things publicly, you take on a level of responsibility and as such you need to be accountable, Lori doesn’t appear to like accountability though. 🫣

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      9·
      9 months ago

      I agree, both of them seem like a bit of a dick.

      Although the blogger doesn’t appear to be a journalist, so things like “right to reply” doesn’t legally apply, it still seems like like basic good manners to offer that to someone if you write a hit piece on them. The comment section on blogs were traditionally a good tool for that, but the blogger seems to decided to not have one on his site.

      • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
        13·
        9 months ago

        Even if we simplify this to “both of them are dicks” it still leaves the sentiment that one of them is a CEO representing a company. Doesn’t reflect well on the company, I don’t care about the blogger.

  • Oinks@lemmy.blahaj.zoneDeutsch
    14·
    9 months ago

    The GDPR conversation is hilarious. Sure they’re a US based company, but after 5 years of operation I would’ve expected them to have consulted a lawyer about this at some point. Forgetting (assuming it’s not “forgetting”) about the required documentation is not the worst thing in the world morally but it doesn’t exactly make them look competent either.

  • emmie@lemmy.ml
    8·
    9 months ago

    Ah I know these traits, CEO of kagi is narcissistic 💯. Just like me 🤪. Would probably done the same and clown myself in the eyes of the web.

    Maybe all of the CEOs are narcs but this one is like extra super insecure even for us.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    6·
    9 months ago

    When I read they they were losing money per search I immediately thought of speedy Pete’s search engine. Which was probably British guy in his shed who would return you your search results because the search engine only worked for a few hours a day and took 3-10mins to get a single result.