“The biggest scam in YouTube history”
Glad he mentioned Honey/PayPal isn’t the only one operating in this space. Capital One has been trying to push their program on me for quite some time.
LegalEagle Suing PayPal's Honey
Submitted 5 weeks ago by lig@lemmings.world to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
dance_ninja@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
rustyricotta@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
I haven’t seen anyone mention Rakuten. I see it occasionally on r/buildapcsales giving a sizable cashback (10-15%) on big ticket items like GPUs or monitors. I’ve used to some benefit, but I assume it’s the same shtick as honey.
boonhet@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
It has to be the same shtick as honey, but unlike honey you’re getting some value from it I guess.
For a moment after watching the Honey video, I considered setting up a company and a browser addon to do the same, but be upfront about it: You buy items, we get the affiliate fee, but you get half the affiliate fee as cashback in a month or two when it’s been processed and paid out, at least for some large storefronts like Amazon and then other high ticket items like NordVPN which apparently pays a huge percentage out to affiliates because it’s so overpriced they can have outrageous discounts and/or pay affiliates.
Then I realized it’d be a pain to set up on the legal side of things likely.
iopq@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Same thing, but it pops up with the cashback deal you will actually get. It’s at least splitting the money with you
RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Honey in the chrome webstore: 4.7 stars. With no clear way to see written reviews, just the aggregated stars are visible.
Honey in the firefox add-ons store: 3.2 stars.
Honey in Trustpilot: 2.7 stars. Closed for new reviews since 4 days, but old reviews and history are still accessible.
Google manages to do worse than trustpilot. Google is once again confirming what a useless company they’ve become.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
I don’t trust reviews at all at this point, from any service like those mentioned.
I will say that it’s diabolical that trust pilot closed the reviews. Meaning people can’t express there disappointment with the app, and that people might still trust it.
faultyproboscus@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Trustpilot tries to weed out fake reviews. A huge influx of reviews all at once looks like fake reviews. And, to be fair, I imagine a chunk of those reviews are “fake” in that the reviewers never used the app. It’s easier for Trustpilot to cut off new reviews for the time being than to deal with evaluating all these new reviews.
rumba@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Now that AI can write reasonably good-sounding copy, reviews are increasingly unreliable.
RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Aggregate scores on all sites have become untrustworthy, they’re just poor first indicators now, but reading user reviews is still very much worth it imo. It just takes way longer to figure out whether a product is good/bad than it did 10 years ago. Once ai llm catch up with writing credible texts, then that method will be toast as well and then we’ll be really screwed when choosing a product.
And I kinda understand why they’re blocking new reviews. Trustpilot doesn’t have a way to verify if the reviewers are actual product users, so their system is very vulnerable to review bombing. It’s a catch 22 for them: damned if they suppress review bombs and damned if they don’t.
Trustpilot’s method could be better (Fe: they could allow reviewbombs to happen and show 2 scores, with and without), but what Google is doing is probably the worst possible way to go about it: On the chrome webstore page there is no indication whatsoever that anything is amiss. Atleast Trustpilot tells visitors to go check the news.
I actually can’t believe that I’ve been defending Trustpilot, they’ve always had a repuation of selectively removing reviews, but well, Google is now worse than them.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Google is know for removing reviewed coming from bomb-reviewing like when a brand gets a sudden burst of bad publicity, but in extensions, Google play, Google maps etc.
john89@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Google is once again confirming what a useless company they’ve become.
Still no option to filter for no ads and no in-app payments in their app store.
Jeremyward@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Honestly I have stopped using the play store for my pixel. But it’s also a bigger trend of no longer allowing apps on my phone other than essentials. Fuck these leaches.
M137@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I understand why, but I in no way agree or think it’s good or acceptable. They’re mainly an ad company, so giving users the option to filter out apps with things they earn money from doesn’t make sense for them. It’s shitty, but logical.
There are third-party apps for the playstore, maybe one or several might have that option? Only one I know the name of just from memory is Aurora, check it out and see if it has those options.
TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
/>trustpilot
/>closed for reviewshow is that allowed? just closing reviews in times of enshitification and opening them in times of a good product??
RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Trustpilot doesn’t have a way to verify if the reviewers are actual product users, so their system is very vulnerable to review bombing. Allowing review bombing can also harm their credibility. It’s a catch 22 for them: damned if they suppress review bombs and damned if they don’t.
Trustpilot’s method and/or communication could probably be better, but what Google is doing is the worst possible way to go about it: On the chrome webstore page there is no indication whatsoever that anything is amiss, Google is just silently removing all recent negative reviews. Atleast Trustpilot tells visitors that they’re temporarily not accepting reviews and that it’s because of recent news.
VerPoilu@sopuli.xyz 4 weeks ago
I’m struggling to understand how everyone thought Honey made money. I have assumed from the first time I saw an ad for them that this is how they operate. It’s not like it’s difficult to prove or disprove either.
EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 4 weeks ago
I just assumed they operated by collecting and selling user data. So while I knew the business model was unethical, I didn’t expect them to get more creative!
Kerred@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
That was my assumption. I never use anything advertised on YouTube (not even magic spoon as I saw it’s like $10 a box). I thought Honey was making money with collecting user data.
But that’s my cynical mind assuming everything is a scam.
theherk@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I love the number of people coming out of the woodwork with “obviously” ex post facto. Like everybody could just intuit how this operated, both in the affiliate stuffing and the deal agreements. It is difficult to show the latter.
VerPoilu@sopuli.xyz 4 weeks ago
Difficult to prove the latter of course, but out of the two, it’s not what most people seem to be complaining the most about.
You’d need the first one to get big enough to pull up the second one anyways.
Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Well that’s just because your are mommy’s smart boy. You’re just so much smarter than all the other little boys.
VerPoilu@sopuli.xyz 4 weeks ago
Thank you.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
I thought they made it from selling user data.
needanke@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Tbf its not a given they don’t also do this.
Fizz@lemmy.nz 4 weeks ago
Same. I thought they sold your browsing and purchase history.
Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 weeks ago
I’m so, so sick of these comments every time some shady shit is uncovered. “How could no one else see this, you’re all so stupid, I knew from the very first ad!”
Yes yes, you’re mommy’s special little genius, despite conspicuously absent comments from that time…
cadekat@pawb.social 4 weeks ago
It wasn’t “uncovered” though. This is their business model. I’ve told every person I know using Honey for years that it’s a shady extension and they should stop using it. Unfortunately I don’t have a huge following to offset Honey’s massive ad spend.
I’m not calling anyone stupid, but stop treating this like it’s new information. Your browser warned you this might happen when you installed the extension:
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
This really does fall under two umbrella cautions. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and how are they making money? Suspicion was warranted from day one, especially if it was owned by PayPal.
Now, there are a lot of smart people on the internet who could have tracked all those messages and figured it out, like ultimately happened. I just wish they’d done it sooner.
psud@aussie.zone 4 weeks ago
Loads of people are suspicious of coupon schemes. They look dodgy. It’s no wonder that people come along after one of these schemes turns out to actually be a scam to say “see, I knew these things were bad” with the only evidence being that they never subscribed to it
Their fault is they claim it was this one specifically
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
If I remember correctly influencers went out of their way to promise Honey was not doing anything sketchy like selling your data and said they got a small commission from the seller free of charge. Turns out Honey stole others commissions.
Static_Rocket@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I assumed from the start that they were purposefully holding back promo codes, or scraping them from users and holding the affected sites ransom (in a sense). “We’ll stop serving this cupon if you become a member.” Scummy, but ultimately still slightly beneficial to the end user, a Robbin Hood crime. (Ignoring the people who work with genuinely good companies to get discount codes for things like student projects. Unrecognized casualties.)
It’s the affiliate link stealing that’s become the source of outcry. That was more stealthy and essentially flipped the script. Now everyone publicly in support of it is being burned.
If you were never involved in it, it really is just funny to see how quickly a corporate Robin Hood figure can flip sides. It’s not like we haven’t seen numerous examples before, some of them literally taking the namesake.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 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.
dan@upvote.au 4 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).
InFerNo@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
Does it did? It’s not clear from the link at first glance.
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.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 weeks ago
What, sorry? I think you have a typo.
__nobodynowhere@startrek.website 4 weeks ago
One upon a time, websites had actually useful coupons and RetailMeNot was created by the people who made BugMeNot and it was great, but more and more websites caught on and RetailMeNot was bought out to the tune of $300 million.
Then everything went to shit.
dan@upvote.au 4 weeks ago
The fact that BugMeNot and RetailMeNot grew so huge is interesting. They were created by two Australians, and for a while were only popular in Australia.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I miss them when they were good and effective. Like Groupon.
They all got enshittified and overrun by people trying to exploit the userbase for clicks.
Babalugats@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Affiliate links and coupons should be banned… Artificially inflating prices so that some users can add a code to get a discount. Huge in antics for years, but growing rapidly in Europe for the last 10.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Yeah, it’s pretty dumb. If I watch 3 reviews of a product, only the one link i clicked will get credit. Without affiliate links, reviewers would likely get paid based on views, which is far more fair.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
Can someone ELI5 what honey was actually doing?
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Using browser exploits to steal commissions from affiliate links without even the user knowing.
Then if you used PayPal checkout, they would also “find” you discounts but swap them out with lower ones and pocket the difference. For example you buy something for $10 and they find a 30% off coupon, but tell you it’s a 10% off coupon. You go to checkout with PayPal and they charge your card $9 but only pay the merchant $7 and pocket the other $2.
TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Everyone else is only talking about the scummy affiliate revenue stealing, but that’s been public info for a while.
The more alarming stuff is that they partner with businesses to manage the coupon codes shown on Honey. If a business doesn’t want consumers to have discounts below a certain percentage, they can remove those coupons from Honey. This means that Honey no longer does the thing that it’s advertised to do, and they’re getting paid affiliate revenue after lying to consumers.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
That was my assumption all along IMO. Any time a coupon company gets big, it’ll end up becoming an advertising platform, because there’s a lot more money in that than saving people money, especially if you make people think they’re saving money.
That’s why I don’t use Honey or any other coupon service, unless I’m actually about to buy something specific and looking for a discount (e.g. I’m happy with the price, but I’d be happier with a 10% discount).
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Here’s the best way I’ve seen it illustrated:
Imagine walking into a physical retail store, something like Best Buy. You want to buy a TV. A blue shit salesman talks to you for awhile, helping you pick out the TV you want with the features you like. He says “Okay, so take this slip to the register, pay for it there and they’ll bring out the TV to your car.” The slip has the salesman’s name on it so he gets a commission on the sale.
On your way to the register, a slimy guy in a suit says “Hey let me see that sales ticket, maybe I’ve got a coupon for that TV, save you some money.” So you hand him the sales slip, he says “Yeah, here’s one for $2 off on this $900 television.” And he hands you that coupon plus a sales ticket…not the original one, another one with HIS name on it instead of the salesman. The slimy guy in the suit is stealing the salesman’s commission.
Now imagine doing this with software on the internet and you’ve got a class action lawsuit from Legal Eagle.
faintwhenfree@lemmus.org 4 weeks ago
The reason so many people are mad is sometimes the suit guy even comes back saying, sorry man didn’t find a discount, but here is your slip. Meanwhile he has changed the slip and added his name and would get the commission without doing anything.
wewbull@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
My problem here, and I don’t mean to victim blame but I don’t understand why anybody thought Honey had a business model that was trustworthy. Most people would see through the slimy guy in your example, so why would they install a slimy guy in their browser? Why would people take sponsorship from a slimy guy? Why would they read our copy that tells kids to “install it on every computer in the house”?
Nobody asked themselves “How does Honey make money out of this?” because at the very least they were going to be data scraping! That much was obvious.
KnowledgeableNip@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
They’d replace affiliate link cookies with their own. So if you’re watching a makeup tutorial and you use their referral code but then use Honey to look for deals, Honey takes the commission instead of the person actually doing the work.
It’s like if the finance person at a car lot decided to take everyone’s commissions because they touched the paperwork last.
dan@upvote.au 4 weeks ago
They’d replace affiliate link cookies with their own
Practically every coupon site does this too though, as do other coupon extensions.
4z01235@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Lying and stealing
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
Who did they steal from? How did they steal? I never used them but didn’t they provide coupon codes or smth?
Clbull@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I hope LegalEagle takes them to the fucking cleaners and sets a precedent for scumbag companies like these who pull off affiliate hijacking and data harvesting.
Jeremyward@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
God PayPal has always been the scum of the earth and only gotten worse over time. 😡
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
They banned my account for some reason, and I could never figure out why. I only used it to pay rent for a year or two and buy a couple of things on eBay. I’m guessing my account was hacked or something, but their support was utterly unhelpful so I have no idea.
But whatever, I don’t need it for anything, so screw 'em.
Slovene@feddit.nl 4 weeks ago
Will Barry B. Benson bee involved?
Strobelt@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
There’s some buzz around it, yeah
paraphrand@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
When MKB commented on the situation, he avoided dropping the name PayPal. Seemingly on purpose. Just in case it would help him in the future.
Zacokalo@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Nah he did mention their ownership
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I dunno what it is, and I’m not saying the person you’re replying to is doing this, but tons of people seem to throw shade at MKB. Like they think he’s being sneaky or is in any way untrustworthy. All I’ve ever seen the guy do is be honest with his opinions. Yes, he is generally a very tech-positive guy. But he’s not afraid to explain in detail why he thinks a product sucks.
themurphy@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
What a weird rumor, you’re trying to start.
He did mention it btw.
kshade@lemmy.world 4 weeks 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.
wispy_jsp@lemmy.world 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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.
victorz@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
some idiots think personal freedom is overrated and like to imagine the web browser as a mysterious black box that “just works”.
john89@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Eh. I don’t care about this because it only affects “influencers” who are willing to sacrifice the integrity of their work to advertise products.
Any “content creator” who lost money from this can go get fucked. They can all eat shit for collectively lowering everyone else’s standards and contributing to a ‘new normal.’
argarath@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
You didn’t even watch the video, did you? This was not affecting only those who were a sponsor for honey, they affected EVERYONE who had an affiliate link, from the Mrbeast youtubers to people who actually check their sponsors because honey.
What honey would do is take away any affiliate commission for themselves, not only taking that money but by changing the cookie from others to theirs, so if a person with an affiliate link that did everything right, got a good sponsor with integrity and did a proper video showing the good and bad side of their product would still lose because instead of the sales showing that people came from the good creator, honey would change to their tracking, making the business not want to sponsor the good creator and the good creator wouldn’t even get their commission from the sales they made because honey stole them
desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
sounds like one of the few cases where more restrictions on browser extensions would be a good thing. Or at least letting users prevent extensions from modifying cookies by default.
simple@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Hell yeah. Huge respect to him and the other youtuber that exposed this, it’s crazy that Honey just pocketing most of the referral money has been undiscovered for so many years.
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
It was Megalag and his channel is amazing. The colorblind scam glasses investigation was amazing
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc4yL3YTwWk
echodot@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
I don’t get how anyone thought they would work. If your color blind they obviously don’t magically alter the receptors in your eyes.