Technology

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.

Spineless tech tips

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.

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.

I don't enjoy watching ltt anymore since a good few years, but I'm still going to come to their defence :)

They discussed dropping Honey on their forum in march 2022: "We ended the partnership with Honey due to the way their service interacted with affiliate links. Essentially, if someone clicked on a affiliate link (For example, one of ours below in the video description on YouTube), and then if they "use honey" and search for a deal, Honey will override that tracking link even if they don't find you a deal. ".

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1415146-weekly-sponsorship-suggestioncomplaint-thread-feb-28-2022/

When they defended themselves against the recent accusations, that they didn't make enough noise when dropping Honey in 2022, their defence was that they thought that only creators were disadvantaged (a few 100 people?). They claim to have been unaware that the users of Honey (the hundreds of thousands of LTT viewers) were being disadvantaged as well. They also seemed to be unaware that Honey's behaviour is likely illegal, at least LTT made no mention on the legality of it. https://therecenttimes.com/news/linustechtips-addresses-megalags-honey-allegations-defends-transparency Which checks out with their 2022 post.

If they had known that the users of Honey were being bamboozled as well, I'm sure that they would have made a video about it. But making a complaint video to basically say that an ex sponsor was stealing some of their marbles, might have given a bad look. + given more publicity to Honey, which LTT probably didn't want to happen.

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.

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.

The only thing truly free are those little pencils at IKEA.

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'

Not a lawyer and haven't seen the lawsuit but I've watched a lot of legal eagle and other lawyers and I suspect it's not about them manipulating codes. I also doubt this is the sort of case trying to set a precedent in any legal sense.

Likely it's just boring fraud because they deceived content creators and users with lies to make money.

A different company doing the same thing but being honest might be unethical and terrible but probably wouldn't be sued.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Youtubers who had their affiliate links hijacked aren't subject to the EULA.

MegaLag has other videos coming. I would assume Honey is also selling a shit ton of purchasing behavior data

The class is people that use referral codes as an income source, so not the users that would have been subject to the terms of service.

In this case the class action would be youtubers and other content creators not users of Honey.