>So the main question that I have is, is there a guarantee that bad sites will not show up here?
Given that everyone has different definitions of "bad" and that someone malicious can put bad stuff on "good" sites, no.
> Given that everyone has different definitions of "bad" and that someone malicious can put bad stuff on "good" sites, no.
Kagi allowing you to assign what is good and bad makes your argument void.
> So the main question that I have is, is there a guarantee that bad sites will not show up here?
You shouldn't rely on the company alone. While it may be what Kagi is aiming for but they can only do so much.
If you're concerned for your kids you too should always double check if the content is good/bad regularly.
>"That's what Kagi is aiming for but they can only do so much."
Not sure why my argument is void, but you restating my exact point with different words is valid?
Are you expecting a company to manage it completely without human intervention, yourself without verifying the results?
If so, you then got to expect what Kagi decides what is bad and what is good and accept that's it.
It could be bias it could be not. I like to think they know but I personally would never put all my eggs in one basket.
>Are you expecting a company to manage it completely without human intervention, yourself without verifying the results?
What?
Parent commenter asked if it was guaranteed to block the bad stuff. I answered no. That's the entire conversation summarized.
Then you came in, said I was wrong, and then answered the question with "no", just like I did.
I didn't say anything about my expectations, or what I would do, or how I do it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding? What is the bad stuff, you want blocked?
OP comment comes off as "I want Kagi to do it for me and to be how I want it" when Kagi doesn't know what you want blocked. How can it? If Kagi is to support blocking why wouldn't they?
I am saying what Kagi wants to block may not be the bad stuff you want blocked and so you should then verify the content of what is blocked.
>Maybe I am misunderstanding.
I think you are...
The only thing I've said in this comment chain is that Kagi cannot guarantee that bad stuff won't show up. Which you seem to agree with (despite saying my argument is void, for some reason, before agreeing with it).
The rest has been you having a conversation with... I'm not sure who. Because you're asking a bunch of questions as if I am using this feature. I am not using this feature. Literally the only point I am making is that Kagi cannot guarantee that bad things wont show up.
And no one can guarantee you won't end up dead tomorrow morning.
Your argument is moot in that sense. Just because it's good today doesn't mean it won't be bad tomorrow. If Kagi is putting best efforts to guarantee that today it's safe that's better than nothing, no? And which to me is kore worthy than not.
If this is some elaborate troll or April Fools to confuse me, you've succeeded. I have no idea what you're going on about.