no need for a restrictive license! people can just take an apk and slap ads or malware on top. they do it all the time with fake candy crush apks. So I’m pretty sure they won’t care about this license.
I think that in the license is just a excuse so no one is redistributing the app and they can make money from it.
This is clearly biased. Your points against SearXNG are weak. And you purposefully ignore the huge privacy implications of needing an account to do searches.
I don’t think this is written by a bot, but I’d say it’s either a camouflaged ad or a rather biased article.
Edit: To be clear. I do not care that a certain company has a good privacy policy. I want verifiable facts, not unverifiable claims. Their backend is proprietary, while SearXNG is free software. There’s only one entity behind that company, which could be (or turn) malicious at any moment. Meanwhile, SearXNG is hosted by multiple individuals and organizations, you could even use a different instance each time, so it’s impossible to corelate your search queries.
So yeah, this is a rather biased article towards a certain company.
I don’t think so. They have commercial agreements with Microsoft that forces them to not block their trackers, so who knows what else they are obliged to by contract
For non-search tracker blocking (eg in our browser), we block most third-party trackers. Unfortunately our Microsoft search syndication agreement prevents us from doing more to Microsoft-owned properties. However, we have been continually pushing and expect to be doing more soon.
until you release that due to needing an account, all your search queries are tied to your account and even if they claim not to, it would be trivial for Kagi to associate all of them with you.
and we don’t have the code of their servers, we know nothing of how they handle this critical information, other than their “trust me bro”.
(and even if they are not directly associating this information, if they store some kind of logs, it would probably be trivial for any third party that gets access to their servers to make the association. an again, we know nothing about their procedures)
There’s still some value that “private” forks add to the list - you can see how well a tweaked Firefox can perform.
Specially relevant in this page because this test uses Firefox as is, without installing uBlock Origin, which is ultra basic advice for privacy. IMO they do this to benefit Brave, but whatever.
have you looked at the community? this is c/privacy and they recommended blogger lol