this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
889 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

60336 readers
5016 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"The biggest scam in YouTube history"

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 55 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Aside from the element of deception towards their sponsored creators, I wonder if this will set precedent for what is a relatively common practice.

https://sirlinksalot.co/affiliate-hijacking/

Honey isn't the only one doing this. Brave Browser does it too:

https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/10134

[–] dan@upvote.au 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I'm curious as to whether the industry will start moving from last-touch attribution to first-touch (or multi-touch) attribution instead.

The only reason last-touch (last affiliate link gets all the credit) is commonplace now is because it's easy to implement. No need for long-term tracking. What the industry really wants is either first-touch (first affiliate link or ad you click gets the credit) or multi-touch (the payment is split between every affiliate), depending on who you ask.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (12 children)

Does or did? It's not clear from the link at first glance.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

God PayPal has always been the scum of the earth and only gotten worse over time. 😡

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 5 points 5 days ago

I use to have a PayPal account. I used it to receive donations from some open-source projects that I was working on. And I passed most of the money on by re-donating it to other people who were also sharing high quality work that I liked. It was never very much money (like maybe a few hundred dollars in total over years); but I kind of enjoyed that.

But around 10 years ago, that PayPal account was blocked, because of who I'd sent money to. They didn't tell me specifically what the problem was, they just told me that it was 'suspicious' - and they (PayPal) demanded personal info from my to prove my identity before they would unlock the account. They wanted photos of drivers license and stuff like that.

Long story short, I eventually did get them to unblock the account (and I did not send them personal info); but that experience destroyed my confidence and trust in PayPal. So I drained the account, and haven't used them ever since. I very much don't like the idea that a company can just take my account (and money) hostage for totally arbitrary reasons and make demands based on that.

[–] __nobodynowhere@startrek.website 43 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days 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.

[–] dan@upvote.au 13 points 6 days 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.

[–] kshade@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

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 affiliate links/cookies with ones from someone 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 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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 class action 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. If this results in a ruling that has nothing to do with the lack of transparency then that might ultimately be a bad thing.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›