Oh, they're actually the bad guys, just folks haven't thought far enough ahead to realise it yet.
You imply there are some good guys.
What company?
Twitter circa 2012?
In 2025? Nobody, I don't think. Even Mozilla is turning into the bad guys these days.
Obv
Kagi, on the other hand, has released none of their technology publicly, meaning they have full power to boil the frog, with no actual assurance that their technology will be useful regardless of their future actions.
For instance, of all companies I've interviewed with or have friends working at that developed tech, some companies build and sell furnitures. Some are your electricity provider or transporter. Some are building inventory management systems for hospitals and drug stores. Some develop a content management system for medical dictionnary. The list is long.
The overwhelming majority of companies are pretty harmless and ethically mundane. They may still get involved in bad practice, but that's not inherent to their business. The hot tech companies may be paying more (blood money if you ask me), but you have other options.
But, can't think of one off hand. Maybe Toys-R-Us? Ooops gone. Radio Shack? Ooops, also gone.
On the scale of Bad/Profit, Nice dies out.
If you can make that algebra add up to "bad guy" then be my guest.
It's like telling an iPhone user that iCloud isn't trustworthy because of the Foxconn suicide nets. It's basically the definition of a non-sequitur.
> The problem is that people don’t realize that if we license one single book, we won’t be able to lean into fair use strategy.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/libge...