Does it did? It’s not clear from the link at first glance.
Comment on LegalEagle Suing PayPal's Honey
fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
Aside from the element of deception towards their sponsored creators, I wonder if this will set president for what is a relatively common practice.
InFerNo@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
renzev@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
They don’t do it any more. Source: just checked.
Interesting how brave stills gets dragged through the mud for this, meanwhile firefox gets to walk free despite the looking glass fiasco.
rumba@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
You probably can’t definitively say they don’t just by isolated checking. There could be a lot at play here. Maybe they turned it off while the heat is on, maybe whatever affiliate you were looking at didn’t actually have a matching affiliate link on their side. Maybe there’s an a/b test where they only jack a certain percentage.
When Linus Tech Tips first took them out as a sponsor they didn’t appear to be jacking then either. But it would be very simple to build a system that turned link jacking off for certain users or during certain times or at certain thresholds.
Brave got caught doing it, and then stopped because the backlash was going to be worse than the advantage. Brave still had plenty of other ways to make money via search, selling advertising and BAT. I honestly don’t fault brave for trying that because they are funding significant development to block ads.
Honey’s base business model probably falls apart without some linkjacking. You go to a website to buy something and it says no no go buy it from these people instead. They’ve got to have it a lower price still have enough margin to sell it to you at that price, and pay honey for the redirection. It’s kind of a sales worst case dilemma.
zqps@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Honey’s base business model probably falls apart without some linkjacking. You go to a website to buy something and it says no no go buy it from these people instead.
That’s not what Honey does.
ADTJ@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Because the Firefox looking glass fiasco wasn’t close to the same level and they immediately responded to criticism on the issue.
Meanwhile there is a pattern of behaviour like this from Brave.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
What, sorry? I think you have a typo.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
This one is now opt in with very ambiguous language:
brave.com/…/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/
They have a habit of doing pretty terrible scammy practices:
Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
All I know is, I downloaded NewPipe thinking I had a thing, and it doesn’t work 70% of the time, but what it DOES do it have a button that says “Open in Browser” which I hit and the video opens in Brave and NO ADS.
EVERYTIME.
UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
So do you. “Precedent”
fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
Ha! Fixed, cheers. :)
InFerNo@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Edited
dan@upvote.au 2 weeks ago
I’m curious as to whether the industry will start moving from last-touch attribution to first-touch (or multi-touch) attribution instead. Last-touch (last affiliate link gets all the credit) is commonplace now because it’s easy to implement, but the industry really wants first-touch (first affiliate link or ad you click gets the credit) or multi-touch (the payment is split between every affiliate).