60 ms·

If any software ever deserved being sued into non-existence it is the Honey browser extension, and any other scam software they turn out (Pie Adblock in this ca

If any software ever deserved being sued into non-existence it is the Honey browser extension, and any other scam software they turn out (Pie Adblock in this case). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc4yL3YTwWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc4yL3YTwWk

tzs 2y ago
I've seen a few ads from them on YouTube promoting their ad blocker, specifically touting that it gets around YouTube's efforts to block ad blockers. I thought it was interesting that YouTube, in the midst of trying to crack down on ad blockers, allows ads promoting an ad blocker that is specifically claiming to evade that crackdown.
- Drakim 2y ago
  I wonder if there could be anti-trust aspects to cracking down on such ads.
  - stackskipton 2y ago
    Nah, just Occam's Razor. Pie Inc. payments went through and it's cheaper for YouTube to run whatever instead of paying to people to curate such ads.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Youtube ads are less moderated than youtube videos. They know where the money is.
chasebank 2y ago
The founders sold 5 years ago to PayPal. Do they just get to laugh on their way to the bank? Probably.
- manquer 2y ago
  Your comment implicitly absolves PayPal of responsibility. One thief sold to another , it is like credit card lists or botnets are sold on the dark web . PayPal is hardly innocent here , they knew what they were getting into , this is the core business model of not just honey but all of the coupon sites.
iou 2y ago
This is the one worth watching, it’s a total scam and PayPal is fine with it apparently.
- s5300 2y ago
  [dead]
ndriscoll 2y ago
From what I've gathered, honey basically replaced affiliate codes with their own and then gave the user part of the commission back? Is there something they did that users should be unhappy about?
- xen0 2y ago
  It seems the voucher codes they 'find' are not the result of them searching the Web. They are simply codes provided by partnered businesses and may be beaten by codes you can get by searching yourself. If true, then this is them outright lying to the user. And you know, if they don't find a coupon code for you, one might still be at least a little annoyed that the original 'salesman' didn't get their affiliate commission; it instead being pinched by another.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    I think in addition to the coupon thing, they had/have some cash back points? In any case, as someone who filters affiliate links, I can't understand why anyone would want to preserve them. Making them useless by having the user's browser automatically inject one seems like an awesome feature and a great social good, even without the user getting part of it. Affiliate programs are a direct cause of a lot of the spam on the web. It should bother you if 10-30% of your price went to whoever last got you to click on a link.
    - slowmovintarget 2y ago
      Yeah, they pass on 80 cents of the $35 commission they get from Nord VPN when they hijack someone else's affiliate link. And it's 80 cents in "points." So you have to spend more to even use those. It's a scam in partnership with the on-line shops. The consumer loses, the reviewer using affiliate links loses, and it turns out the extension goes further by occasionally making up discounts that don't exist (this will be in the next video it seems), so the seller gets screwed, too!
- 14 2y ago
  Well some people actually do believe in giving credit to the person who helped them make an informed purchase. I have gone into a store and had a worker spend like 20 minutes showing me things. I wasn't ready to buy but when I was and came back I had another worker try and help me but said to them the other worker spend a lot of time helping the other day I would like to buy it through them and was sorry.
twostorytower 2y ago
This video is just rage bait and weaponizing creators and their fans by singling out Honey and not providing any additional context. Anybody in the affiliate industry knows how last click attribution works. This isn't new or specific to Honey. CapitalOne Shopping, Rakuten, RetailMeNot...they all work the same way. Merchants partner with these shopping extensions knowing how they work, nobody forces them to do so. The affiliate networks (CJ, Impact, etc) are the ones who determine what attribution method to use, shopping extensions just comply. The vast majority of shopping sessions don't have any prior attribution and merchants fund all of these commissions (nothing is taken from a creator or a user). Yeah, it does seem like the codes Honey has have gotten worse in recent years, probably just a consequence of PayPal acquiring them and not giving it any attention (and layoffs). But the example MegaLag points out of finding a better code on a coupon website DOES THE SAME THING AS HONEY (overides the attribution). So are there some problems with the affiliate industry? Probably. But calling Honey a "scam" seems completely unfair and lacks critical thinking. It's saved me thousands of dollars over the years.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Stop spamming the same bullshit apologism over and over and over Nobody cares that other companies and extensions do the same thing, they're bad too.
  - twostorytower 2y ago
    I'm not saying this isn't a problem, it's just not a Honey-specific problem. If he actually wanted to influence change, he should cover the affiliate networks responsible for dictating this behavior (CJ, Impact, Rakuten, Awin, etc). The extensions are forced to comply by their rules.
    - josephg 2y ago
      > I'm not saying this isn't a problem, it's just not a Honey-specific problem. You didn’t just say that. You said a whole lot of other things. You lead with the fact that it’s well known within the industry. The implication of your comment is that the companies did nothing wrong, and people are idiots for not knowing this stuff before. If that’s not your stance, you should make your stance more clear. If you instead simply said “people should also be angry at all these other extensions and companies, they’re complicit and just as bad” then nobody would be calling you out for astroturfing.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tzs 2y ago

I've seen a few ads from them on YouTube promoting their ad blocker, specifically touting that it gets around YouTube's efforts to block ad blockers. I thought it was interesting that YouTube, in the midst of trying to crack down on ad blockers, allows ads promoting an ad blocker that is specifically claiming to evade that crackdown.

Drakim 2y ago
I wonder if there could be anti-trust aspects to cracking down on such ads.
- stackskipton 2y ago
  Nah, just Occam's Razor. Pie Inc. payments went through and it's cheaper for YouTube to run whatever instead of paying to people to curate such ads.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Youtube ads are less moderated than youtube videos. They know where the money is.

chasebank 2y ago

The founders sold 5 years ago to PayPal. Do they just get to laugh on their way to the bank? Probably.

manquer 2y ago
Your comment implicitly absolves PayPal of responsibility. One thief sold to another , it is like credit card lists or botnets are sold on the dark web . PayPal is hardly innocent here , they knew what they were getting into , this is the core business model of not just honey but all of the coupon sites.

iou 2y ago

This is the one worth watching, it’s a total scam and PayPal is fine with it apparently.

s5300 2y ago
[dead]

ndriscoll 2y ago

From what I've gathered, honey basically replaced affiliate codes with their own and then gave the user part of the commission back? Is there something they did that users should be unhappy about?

xen0 2y ago
It seems the voucher codes they 'find' are not the result of them searching the Web. They are simply codes provided by partnered businesses and may be beaten by codes you can get by searching yourself. If true, then this is them outright lying to the user. And you know, if they don't find a coupon code for you, one might still be at least a little annoyed that the original 'salesman' didn't get their affiliate commission; it instead being pinched by another.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  I think in addition to the coupon thing, they had/have some cash back points? In any case, as someone who filters affiliate links, I can't understand why anyone would want to preserve them. Making them useless by having the user's browser automatically inject one seems like an awesome feature and a great social good, even without the user getting part of it. Affiliate programs are a direct cause of a lot of the spam on the web. It should bother you if 10-30% of your price went to whoever last got you to click on a link.
  - slowmovintarget 2y ago
    Yeah, they pass on 80 cents of the $35 commission they get from Nord VPN when they hijack someone else's affiliate link. And it's 80 cents in "points." So you have to spend more to even use those. It's a scam in partnership with the on-line shops. The consumer loses, the reviewer using affiliate links loses, and it turns out the extension goes further by occasionally making up discounts that don't exist (this will be in the next video it seems), so the seller gets screwed, too!
14 2y ago
Well some people actually do believe in giving credit to the person who helped them make an informed purchase. I have gone into a store and had a worker spend like 20 minutes showing me things. I wasn't ready to buy but when I was and came back I had another worker try and help me but said to them the other worker spend a lot of time helping the other day I would like to buy it through them and was sorry.

twostorytower 2y ago

This video is just rage bait and weaponizing creators and their fans by singling out Honey and not providing any additional context. Anybody in the affiliate industry knows how last click attribution works. This isn't new or specific to Honey. CapitalOne Shopping, Rakuten, RetailMeNot...they all work the same way. Merchants partner with these shopping extensions knowing how they work, nobody forces them to do so. The affiliate networks (CJ, Impact, etc) are the ones who determine what attribution method to use, shopping extensions just comply. The vast majority of shopping sessions don't have any prior attribution and merchants fund all of these commissions (nothing is taken from a creator or a user). Yeah, it does seem like the codes Honey has have gotten worse in recent years, probably just a consequence of PayPal acquiring them and not giving it any attention (and layoffs). But the example MegaLag points out of finding a better code on a coupon website DOES THE SAME THING AS HONEY (overides the attribution). So are there some problems with the affiliate industry? Probably. But calling Honey a "scam" seems completely unfair and lacks critical thinking. It's saved me thousands of dollars over the years.

mrguyorama 2y ago
Stop spamming the same bullshit apologism over and over and over Nobody cares that other companies and extensions do the same thing, they're bad too.
- twostorytower 2y ago
  I'm not saying this isn't a problem, it's just not a Honey-specific problem. If he actually wanted to influence change, he should cover the affiliate networks responsible for dictating this behavior (CJ, Impact, Rakuten, Awin, etc). The extensions are forced to comply by their rules.
  - josephg 2y ago
    > I'm not saying this isn't a problem, it's just not a Honey-specific problem. You didn’t just say that. You said a whole lot of other things. You lead with the fact that it’s well known within the industry. The implication of your comment is that the companies did nothing wrong, and people are idiots for not knowing this stuff before. If that’s not your stance, you should make your stance more clear. If you instead simply said “people should also be angry at all these other extensions and companies, they’re complicit and just as bad” then nobody would be calling you out for astroturfing.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]