That is an insane amount of data. I’m trying to fathom what 82TB of text files looks like and I can’t.

2nd half in raw binary because I use Arch btw.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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?

It was a joke, mate.

I briefly looked through user tal’s comment history, and found that they also italicized Google as a source of info in another comment. Does this mean they’re also shilling for Google? Imagine how pissed Kagi would be if they found out…

Ok man. I get it. Anything that costs money is bad. Let’s never speak the name of any for profit company or business as it may give them free advertising. Thank you for keeping us all safe.

Lol now we’re going to debate and call people out over their post syntax and use of italics? Is this what belongs on Lemmy? I guess it’s funny content in a way…

To begrudgingly answer your question, no I do not usually notice people italicizing titles in casual news aggregator comments. I do however notice it done in professional journalism. Neither of the cases trigger me either way.

Well yeah, italicizing it denotes that it’s the title of the source.

The “ad copy” was just them explaining why they personally like using Kagi, after you called them out for it.

With all that said, I think you’ll just end up Streisand effecting it in the end if you call it out over and over. 🤷‍♂️

Calling that an advertisement for Kagi seems a bit hyper reactive to me. I think they’re just including it as a source along with the info for transparency’s sake. I appreciate it for the context it provides.

Translation: “We’re going to commit fraud to make the national debt appear lower.”