Not sure why someone would down vote this. I fully agree. Please someone explain why consumers shouldn’t be able to use an extension like this that is not-for-profit, e.g.
Comment on LegalEagle Suing PayPal's Honey
kshade@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Hope this case won’t be used against consumers in the future. If I want to use/make an extension that scrubs all affiliate links and cookies that should be legal, same with an extension that replaces all links/cookies with one I want to support. Advertisers and their partners have no rights to anything being stored/done on my devices.
Not defending what Paypal was doing, but the real issue for me is that they had no intention of actually finding the best codes/discounts, not what they did with affiliate links.
victorz@lemmy.world 2 days ago
desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
some idiots think personal freedom is overrated and like to imagine the web browser as a mysterious black box that “just works”.
wispy_jsp@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I would say the real issue is transparency. If Honey made it clear that their product overwrote the affiliate links referer, didn’t actually find the best deals (despite advertising that exact thing), and then paid influencers to advertise their product that also steals from them, then this wouldn’t be as much of a big deal if at all. Though they also probably wouldn’t be a successful business, hence why many consider it a scam.
kshade@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s fair, I agree. I just find it a bit concerning that random people who try to make money off of affiliate links are encouraged to join this lawsuit about a client-side browser addon. I totally understand why people who have had sponsorship agreements with them would sue, but that’s purely between the two businesses.