Readit NewsAnd then decide whoever used them had malicious intent?
I would argue, without any evidence, that when terms are used and embraced, they lose their negative connotations. Because in the end, you want to fight the negativity they represent, not the term itself.
You have to, individually - find a representative, their contact info, state your case, hope it's the correct person, hope your mail doesn't go unnoticed, hope that it will be properly read, hope it changes their mind.
This is "lobbying" by the people in a disorganised way, trying to fight organised lobbying.
This is a barrier that puts lots of people off, even if they have strong feelings about it.
I wish there was an easier way for people to say they are against this
A search engine's job is to deliver the best possible results. We evaluate API sources on search quality, not geopolitics. Yandex represents 2% of our costs but contributes meaningfully to search quality - removing it would harm all users while having minimal economic impact. We've used their API since 2019 and evaluate all sources purely on technical merit: result quality, latency, privacy terms, and legal compliance. The moment politics influences search results is the moment we stop being a search engine.
I've written a longer explanation of our position and how Kagi works technically which you can find here https://kagifeedback.org/d/5445-reconsider-yandex-integratio...
Everything is politics, whether you acknowledge it or not. And right now you are taking a political stance.
As an independent alternative, the Ladybird browser (https://ladybird.org/) is being developed and could possibly benefit from more financial support.
The open secret that for some reason nobody is willing to acknowledge is that Palestinians will never accept even the borders of 1948 — for Palestinians it’s all or nothing. You won’t find even a single popular politician that is okay with peace deal for a simple reason — they do not want it.
So, what do you do?
Obviously there is no straightforward solution, and I don't want to fuel this anymore.
Palestinians do not want to stick to those borders too. They want it all to themselves. I mean, you cannot expect Israeli government to sell the idea to their people that we are going to give it to the Palestinians and let's see what happens to us, right?
But since you only picked up on that: what the Israeli government is doing to Palestinians, is exactly what you are describing, but from the other side. It's not hypothetical. It's happening. When will they stop?
In reply to your argument, the deny list (the actual list, apart from what term we use for it) is necessarily something negatively laden, since the items denied are denied due to the real risks/costs they otherwise impose. So using and embracing the less direct phrase 'black' rather than 'deny' in this case seems unlikely to reduce negative connotations from the phrase 'black'.
Consider how whoever complains about blacklist/whitelist would eventually complain about about allow/deny and say they are non-inclusive. Where would this stop?
I would say that as long as the term in unequivocal (and not meant to be offensive) in the context, then there's no need to self-censor