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!
- 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).
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Someone disagreeing with you is not the same as attacking you.
  
  Suggesting I'm victim blaming is an ad-hominem attack 🙃
  
  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.
  
  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. 🤦🏾‍♂️
  
  Me: Actually, it’s par for the course that someone be given the right to defend themselves
  You still don't get it.
  
  "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.
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
- 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.
  
  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. 🫣
  
  you made a statement in public for all to hear. are you unable to defend the statements you make? or simply unwilling to have a reasoned discussion?
  
  You shifted the topic, then proceded to do the same thing this Vlad guy was doing, t'was only fitting to point out the similarity. 😊
  Now... you want to discuss the accountability of public posts? Oh boy, where do we start! Should we begin with Facebook, or YouTube comments and scam posts? Or would 4chan and the Usenet be more fitting? Do we analyze the Twitter history of presidential posts? 🙄
  The Lori character is not a journalist, doesn't claim to be one, is not a public figure... and yet they made all this public, instead of asking for a phone call, or a private mail discussion.
  
  If free speech requires everyone who makes a statement or belief to engage in debate about it, I don't believe it would work very well.
- 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.
  
  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.

28 comments