Comment on LegalEagle Suing PayPal's Honey

• renzev@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • rumba@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • zqps@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • rumba@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Additionally, the video asserts that Honey does not always find users the best discounts, either. Despite the browser extension’s past advertising, the video showed multiple examples of Honey not presenting the best coupon codes to the consumer. Further supporting this claim is wording from Honey’s FAQ page for partner businesses and its terms of use agreement. According to the FAQ page, any business that has an official partnership with Honey (in order to partner, a business must pay Honey a 3% commission) can add or remove codes from the platform. Additionally, the following paragraphs can be found within Honey’s terms of use agreement:

        While we try and find you the best available discounts and coupons, and to identify low prices, we may not always find you the best deal. PayPal is not responsible for any missed savings or rewards opportunities

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ADTJ@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

    source
• fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  What, sorry? I think you have a typo.

  source

  • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨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:

    reddit.com/…/why_is_brave_highly_disliked_in_the_…

    news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42353473

    source

    • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

      source
  • UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    So do you. “Precedent”

    source

    • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Ha! Fixed, cheers. :)

      source
  • InFerNo@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Edited

    source