842
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
842 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
60311 readers
2915 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree that Honey is a sleazy extension, but should I be worried that if they lose, it will set a bad precedent? From the video, the Honey extension works by injecting a Honey referral code into all online shopping transactions, possibly overwriting whatever influencer referral code the user was under. If Honey loses, the court decision is likely to say that an extension creator is liable if they tamper with referral codes and tracking links.
This will be a problem for privacy extensions that strip out tracking cookies and referral URLs, since they are also messing with influencer attribution, though not for profit but at the request of the user.
That makes no sense. The problem is not that an extension is tampering with tracker links, it is that it is falsely attributing itself as a sales representative.
Not a lawyer but I think the fact that honey profited, like, a lot from this is a key factor. From my understanding it's hard to say what they didn't wasn't straight up theft. What's more, they lied about what they were doing so the consumer was unaware of the 'product' they were getting. So while I get your concern, I wouldn't be too worried about precedent here. It's less 'this should be made illegal!' and more 'they def committed several actual crimes'
In such case, my opinion would be that referal stripping should be OK. It is the customer choice, even if automated, and the extension clearly tell what he does. You can see it, using the metaphor used in the video exposing the problem, as just not giving the referal card the store salesman gave you.
In the case of Honey, they do it behind the customer back, and the original video metaphor is quite right. They could at least ask i f the user wish to attribute the sale to Honey instead of whatever influencer/website originally pointed you to the product, but they don't.
I'm thinking this lawsuit will be more about how they wronged creators, and less about how they wronged customers. I don't expect there to be any justice or concern for the customers who were wronged. Therefore, I agree with TAG, I would worry that them losing would set a bad precedent, and possibly make it so that tampering with referral codes, tracking links, etc isn't allowed anymore because it hurts creators and sellers/companies, and thus that could outlaw adblockers entirely by extension which would not be great.
That's like worst-case scenario, though, I don't necessarily expect that to happen, but I think it's possible.
The issue here isn't that the tracking link has been tampered with, but that it was done without the user's informed consent.
Honey doesn't advertise how it makes its money to consumers; it is just a fancy plug-in that could save you money.
That is not the issue at all. This lawsuit has nothing to do with user of honey, only on behalf of creators and affiliate marketers. Langley in part because users of honey signed a class action waver and makes it a sticky issue to also include them in the lawsuit.
One of the lawyers taking part in it explicitly points this out: https://youtu.be/ItiXffyTgQg?t=182
Nah, honey was marketed as a coupon tool without mentioning the referral manipulation it did that is its actual business model. Those privacy extensions just need to call out that they remove referral trackers too and everything is fine with them.
Not a lawyer and haven't seen the lawsuit but I've watched a lot of legal eagle and other lawyers and I suspect it's not about them manipulating codes. I also doubt this is the sort of case trying to set a precedent in any legal sense.
Likely it's just boring fraud because they deceived content creators and users with lies to make money.
A different company doing the same thing but being honest might be unethical and terrible but probably wouldn't be sued.
I don't see a problem if they let the user know what those extensions are doing, unlike Honey.
Not an issue because FOSS