This post by the company (target?) of Wireguard's scheme has some valuable details, but I think it focuses excessively on "kickbacks" (which, in this context, a

This post by the company (target?) of Wireguard's scheme has some valuable details, but I think it focuses excessively on "kickbacks" (which, in this context, are ordinary affiliate agreements). The more egregious behavior here is that Wireguard seemingly intentionally avoided reviewing newer versions of a product as part of an attempt to apply pressure on the product's company to enter an affiliate agreement. When it became clear that the company wouldn't do so, they essentially allowed their review to become "stale" in order to make it's (affiliate agreement covered) replacement appear more organic. That, at least to me, is more scandalous than the "kickback" part. Especially given that Wireguard has always been somewhat transparent about relying on affiliate agreements. Edit: Wireguard appears to have written a response disputing that behavior: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/