Before I even clicked it I knew there would be no real journalism involved. It's just parroting the video the LegalEagle put out, so if you'd rather give your click to the creator, just watch the Youtube video, and don't bother with the techcrunch "article".
This article credits Legal Eagle, embeds the original, is much shorter to read than an 8-minute video and doesn’t require me to wear headphones. Lemmy is a text based social media so it makes sense to favour text sources. Definitely better than linking to some overloaded Invidious instance which seems to be the norm.
Lemmy is a text based social media
No it is not. It is a link aggregator. Can be text, can be images, can be video, can be news, etc. etc.
The very first time I saw an ad for Honey I knew there had to be a catch. Nothing is ever free.
It wasn't immediately obvious how they were going to make money, though. I figured they'd just sell gather and sell user data. I had completely forgotten about affiliate links. But they probably also sell your data for good measure.
The only thing truly free are those little pencils at IKEA.
Those are priced into the products IKEA sells.
I only go there for the free pencils and make my furniture out of the pencils. Checkmate
No purchase required, though. You can just take all the pencils and paper rulers you want!
That just means the actual customers are paying for you.
There are plenty of free things on the Internet. You're commenting on a free social network.
I pay $100/month for internet access.
Lemmy may be free to access, but certainly not free to host. Am I paying for it personally? No, but someone is.
You also don't see Lemmy paying hundreds of YouTubers and influencers for ad spots.
I pay $100/month for internet access.
Which you'd also pay if you used Honey.
Lemmy may be free to access, but certainly not free to host. Am I paying for it personally? No, but someone is.
You also wouldn't have paid to use Honey.
You also don't see Lemmy paying hundreds of YouTubers and influencers for ad spots.
That one, that's a valid argument.
You also wouldn't have paid to use Honey.
That's my point? Nothing is ever truly free?
Lemmy may be free to access, but certainly not free to host. Am I paying for it personally? No, but someone is.
Kind reminder to donate to whoever is hosting your instance. Covering a share of costs increases the chances they will continue running it.
Saved you a click
Among other accusations, MegaLag said that if a YouTuber or other creator promotes a product through an affiliate link, if the viewer has installed Honey, the extension will surreptitiously substitute its own link when the viewer makes a purchase — even if Honey didn’t provide any discounts. That means Honey, not the creator, receives the affiliate revenue for the transaction.
If they'd just been a little less greedy, and only inserted their affiliate link for purchases where none was originally present, and actually provided the service they advertised rather than 'partnering' with merchants to provide worse coupons, they'd probably never have gotten caught and if they had, nobody would have cared. Could have skimmed a significant but lesser amount forever. But no, they had to go full on villain, and here we are.
As much as I enjoy watching LTT content, I have to speak out about how they realized Honey was fucking them and then said NOTHING to their audience or to other YouTubers. I think that is just plain shitty of them and has put a sour taste in mouth with their content now. If they did say something, I apologize. I just haven’t seen it since the only “social media” I use is this singular one, Lemmy.
So the scenario is that they know Honey is losing them money, but it's saving user's money by finding them great deals (since that part of the controversy wasn't known at the time).
And you are proposing they make a video complaining about it. A big YouTuber millionaire telling people "hey, I know this extension is making you money, but please consider not using it because we are profiting off of our affiliate links less when you do and our profits are more important than your savings".
How do you think that would go? We all know how such a video would be received.
Except it wasn't saving people money. It actually was hiding coupons from users.
But like they wrote, that wasn't known at the time.
I mean it seems totally on brand for Linus, especially after auctioning off 1 of 1 prototypes he promised to give back months ago. Only to hide behind the fact the auction was for charity.
He said on the WAN show that when they dropped Honey a few years ago, the news was going around all over creator circles and a lot of other creators dropped them then too. And they didn't make a video because at the time only the affiliate yoinking was known, and the audience would probably call them shills for making a video about how they're losing money due to their audience saving money.
I don't think his defense is 100% airtight, but it's useful context.
I think they talked about it on WAN show and said that other creators already knew which is why you haven't really seen Honey ads anymore even before the recent video came out and they didn't know about the consumer issues so they didn't think it warranted a video.
Tell that to all the creators who are coming out and screaming that they never knew and are anxious to join the class action lawsuit that Legal Eagle and Wendover productions is bringing.
I agree that Honey is a sleazy extension, but should I be worried that if they lose, it will set a bad precedent? From the video, the Honey extension works by injecting a Honey referral code into all online shopping transactions, possibly overwriting whatever influencer referral code the user was under. If Honey loses, the court decision is likely to say that an extension creator is liable if they tamper with referral codes and tracking links.
This will be a problem for privacy extensions that strip out tracking cookies and referral URLs, since they are also messing with influencer attribution, though not for profit but at the request of the user.
That makes no sense. The problem is not that an extension is tampering with tracker links, it is that it is falsely attributing itself as a sales representative.
Not a lawyer but I think the fact that honey profited, like, a lot from this is a key factor. From my understanding it's hard to say what they didn't wasn't straight up theft. What's more, they lied about what they were doing so the consumer was unaware of the 'product' they were getting. So while I get your concern, I wouldn't be too worried about precedent here. It's less 'this should be made illegal!' and more 'they def committed several actual crimes'
In such case, my opinion would be that referal stripping should be OK. It is the customer choice, even if automated, and the extension clearly tell what he does. You can see it, using the metaphor used in the video exposing the problem, as just not giving the referal card the store salesman gave you.
In the case of Honey, they do it behind the customer back, and the original video metaphor is quite right. They could at least ask i f the user wish to attribute the sale to Honey instead of whatever influencer/website originally pointed you to the product, but they don't.
I'm thinking this lawsuit will be more about how they wronged creators, and less about how they wronged customers. I don't expect there to be any justice or concern for the customers who were wronged. Therefore, I agree with TAG, I would worry that them losing would set a bad precedent, and possibly make it so that tampering with referral codes, tracking links, etc isn't allowed anymore because it hurts creators and sellers/companies, and thus that could outlaw adblockers entirely by extension which would not be great.
That's like worst-case scenario, though, I don't necessarily expect that to happen, but I think it's possible.
The issue here isn't that the tracking link has been tampered with, but that it was done without the user's informed consent.
Honey doesn't advertise how it makes its money to consumers; it is just a fancy plug-in that could save you money.
Nah, honey was marketed as a coupon tool without mentioning the referral manipulation it did that is its actual business model. Those privacy extensions just need to call out that they remove referral trackers too and everything is fine with them.
I don't see a problem if they let the user know what those extensions are doing, unlike Honey.
Honey has in its terms of services that you accept not to take part in a class action lawsuit and favor arbitration. It seems like these kind of clause is enforceable usually so I'm curious to see how Legal Eagle will navigate the issue.
Edit: Either the creators sue Honey and they will argue it is not illegal to poach affiliate links because they follow the "last click" rule that is standard (it's just that they pushed it to the extreme).
Or its the users that are scammed because they were told the best coupon would be used. But if it's the users, they are under the EULA and should have to comply with the no class action rule.
I'm not a lawyer but this is how I understand the setup for this trial to be.
According to Legal Eagle's video, Honey could be pocketing affiliate link money from creators that had never even anything to do with them.
It's installed on viewer's side, so it makes sense.
I'd also say there are probably limits to what you can enforce arbitration for, especially if you outright lied to your customers, but I am not American and I have no idea how irredeemably fucked up your customer protection laws are.
That's the thing PayPal Honey is saying they are respecting the "last click" rule and in their eyes there is nothing illegal in that.
Even if the creator as nothing to do with honey they are saying the last click is in honey just before checkout so they get the money. I understand this is a terrible excuse but it seems that's the defense they will follow. Basically they are hiding behind that stupid last click rule and using it to justify it's perfectly legal.
Basically Honey says "we just strictly comply to a standard practice in affiliate links".
So Disney had an arbitration clause in a eula that a user agreed to when they signed up for a streaming trial service and never ended up subscribing. When he died of food poisoning at a restaurant at one of Disney's amusement parks, his widow looked to be unable to sue the park over it, because he had agreed to that eula by signing up a couple years before.
It was generally perceived that the clause would have been enforceable in that fucked up situation, but Disney backed off when the word got out that the lawyers in the trial were pushing that argument, and they waived the clause. But in that instance, it was never actually ruled on, and many people seemed to think that it was going to be enforced. That's how fucked the system is when it comes to these clauses.
Disney hoped the clause would be enforceable. At least part of the reason Disney settled out of court was because they didn't want to challenge that assumption.
You can put whatever clauses you want in a contract. The law still trumps those contracts if it ever comes to enforceability.
Youtubers who had their affiliate links hijacked aren't subject to the EULA.
In this case the class action would be youtubers and other content creators not users of Honey.
MegaLag has other videos coming. I would assume Honey is also selling a shit ton of purchasing behavior data
I always assumed that was their business model. Can imagine that car content and shopping habits are valuable af.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
