4 ms·

It works. The only reason I knew what Honey was because so many Podcasters and Youtubers have advertised it on their content. I have never used it, but I recogn

by nicce 2y ago

It works. The only reason I knew what Honey was because so many Podcasters and Youtubers have advertised it on their content. I have never used it, but I recognized the name and knew what it does.

lesuorac 2y ago
In case you missed the news, it doesn't work the way it was advertised. Honey _does not_ scour the web for discount codes. Honey instead partners with webpages to provide you a discount code (or not) with the advantage for the webpage being that less people will use a 30% discount code and instead use Honey's 10%. Of course the really funny part was that basically none of the influencers did due diligence on their counter-party and Honey also took all of the influencer's affiliate money as well.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  They do crowdsource discount codes from other users which is how you get internal discount codes used for testers leaked to other users. I think this is a facilitation of theft, though the theft is hidden to the user so the user does not possess criminal intent while using the code. I’m not sure how illegal it is but it is clearly wildly unethical.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    There is no theft as long as the “testers” or whoever are voluntarily installing Honey. The T&C of installing Honey surely includes the right for Honey to see and share the discount codes.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      It should be incumbent on Honey to check if these discounts are indeed public. 100% discounts would be an obvious place to start. Given that Honey claims to search the public internet for discounts according to their claims they can in fact do this. At the scale and resources of Honey the claim of ignorance becomes unreasonable. It would help their case if they had a made a documented good faith attempt, but I think due to the obvious nefarious nature they would have avoided collecting such data because they wanted to continue the practice. But as mentioned, I’m not sure how illegal it is despite the TOS but it’s clearly wildly unethical.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        Why would it be incumbent on Honey, or illegal at all? It is a voluntary transaction by two businesses. If the business does not want their codes given out, then they should not agree to Honey’s T&C.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        Just because the user agrees to Honeys T&C does not mean the user has the right to share the coupon in that manner. The coupon originating company did not give the user the coupon with permission to share. If it was a printed coupon and photocopied it would be obviously illegal, I’m not sure how the digital equivalent would not be illegal. If such a coupon was publicly available then it would be like if honey went and fetched you a new coupon instead of copying an existing one. Even if the user says they have the right it doesn’t mean they do, and at what point does it become handling stolen goods. Consider a scrap dealer accepting a clearly stolen catalytic converter, would that still be illegal if the scrap dealer did not pay for it? How ‘clearly stolen’ would it have to be to be illegal. What is a reasonable amount of verification?
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        The original post I responded to mentioned “testers”, presumably employees of the business, and therefore, this would be an employee insubordination problem for the employer to deal with, if the employee shares something they should not. > Consider a scrap dealer accepting a clearly stolen catalytic converter Why? I don’t see where the claim is being made that Honey/Paypal is accepting clearly stolen coupon codes.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        As mentioned, if honey did a reasonable amount of verification that the coupon could rightfully be shared for some definition of reasonable they could make the case for innocence. They should be able to provide evidence of this. There are external testers as well as many other reasons to issue one off coupons to third parties. So the presumption that an employee of the company has permission to act as an agent of a company does not apply in such cases.

by nicce 2y ago

It works. The only reason I knew what Honey was because so many Podcasters and Youtubers have advertised it on their content. I have never used it, but I recognized the name and knew what it does.

lesuorac 2y ago

In case you missed the news, it doesn't work the way it was advertised. Honey _does not_ scour the web for discount codes. Honey instead partners with webpages to provide you a discount code (or not) with the advantage for the webpage being that less people will use a 30% discount code and instead use Honey's 10%. Of course the really funny part was that basically none of the influencers did due diligence on their counter-party and Honey also took all of the influencer's affiliate money as well.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
They do crowdsource discount codes from other users which is how you get internal discount codes used for testers leaked to other users. I think this is a facilitation of theft, though the theft is hidden to the user so the user does not possess criminal intent while using the code. I’m not sure how illegal it is but it is clearly wildly unethical.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  There is no theft as long as the “testers” or whoever are voluntarily installing Honey. The T&C of installing Honey surely includes the right for Honey to see and share the discount codes.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    It should be incumbent on Honey to check if these discounts are indeed public. 100% discounts would be an obvious place to start. Given that Honey claims to search the public internet for discounts according to their claims they can in fact do this. At the scale and resources of Honey the claim of ignorance becomes unreasonable. It would help their case if they had a made a documented good faith attempt, but I think due to the obvious nefarious nature they would have avoided collecting such data because they wanted to continue the practice. But as mentioned, I’m not sure how illegal it is despite the TOS but it’s clearly wildly unethical.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Why would it be incumbent on Honey, or illegal at all? It is a voluntary transaction by two businesses. If the business does not want their codes given out, then they should not agree to Honey’s T&C.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        Just because the user agrees to Honeys T&C does not mean the user has the right to share the coupon in that manner. The coupon originating company did not give the user the coupon with permission to share. If it was a printed coupon and photocopied it would be obviously illegal, I’m not sure how the digital equivalent would not be illegal. If such a coupon was publicly available then it would be like if honey went and fetched you a new coupon instead of copying an existing one. Even if the user says they have the right it doesn’t mean they do, and at what point does it become handling stolen goods. Consider a scrap dealer accepting a clearly stolen catalytic converter, would that still be illegal if the scrap dealer did not pay for it? How ‘clearly stolen’ would it have to be to be illegal. What is a reasonable amount of verification?
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        The original post I responded to mentioned “testers”, presumably employees of the business, and therefore, this would be an employee insubordination problem for the employer to deal with, if the employee shares something they should not. > Consider a scrap dealer accepting a clearly stolen catalytic converter Why? I don’t see where the claim is being made that Honey/Paypal is accepting clearly stolen coupon codes.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        As mentioned, if honey did a reasonable amount of verification that the coupon could rightfully be shared for some definition of reasonable they could make the case for innocence. They should be able to provide evidence of this. There are external testers as well as many other reasons to issue one off coupons to third parties. So the presumption that an employee of the company has permission to act as an agent of a company does not apply in such cases.