11 ms·

PayPal Honey extension has again "featured" flag in Chrome web store

324 points by dvh 2y ago

djfivyvusn 2y ago
Probably getting a kickback.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hart_russell 2y ago
Getting rid of manifest v2 and propping up a scam extension. Chrome is looking more and more disgusting
- relistan 2y ago
  You have to think about how Google abandoned Firefox, which at the time was quite good, in order to build their own browser. It was always about control and owning the data. They fund their business with advertising spread all over the internet. Manifest v2 allowed their browser to run extensions that block the ads that pay for Chrome to exist.
  - rafram 2y ago
    Firefox was OK. I think people forget how much better it’s become since Chrome came out. V8 was so much faster than SpiderMonkey at first. (I would argue that Chrome was targeted primarily at IE, though.)
    - relistan 2y ago
      I used both at the time. I think you are overstating the difference. There wasn't as much full-on JS on the web and for all the things people normally did, FF did not struggle at all. If Chrome had been aimed primarily at IE, they could have continued to fund Firefox, or could have worked with Mozilla to do whatever improvements they wanted. For example, if the objective had been speed, Google had so much clout with Mozilla at the time that I feel pretty certain they could have contributed to building something like v8 into Firefox. But it wasn't about any of that. It was about owning the browser because they decided it was in their strategic interest. And that's because their business was by that point entirely funded by people's eyeballs in a browser, looking at ads.
      - rafram 2y ago
        They did continue to fund Firefox. $555 million in 2023!
- eitland 2y ago
  I keep wondering why people on HN use Chrome at all three days. There was a couple of years when people posted demos that only worked in IE^H Chrome but right now everything I need works in Firefox and I don't even see demos that need Chrome anymore.
  - imcritic 2y ago
    Because Mozilla is as evil as google is and their browser is generally worse than chrome on average. We are now just entering a timeline where chrome nose dives on that comparison chart of "who is better?" with compared to Firefox.
    - stanac 2y ago
      I won't go into whether FF is worse than chrome, but why do you think Mozilla is as evil as google?
      - withinboredom 2y ago
        I don't know why they particularly think that. But Mozilla developed a way to uniquely track people without their consent or knowledge. I am not ok with that and that is evil to me.
        alt227 2y ago
        But you can still turn it off in the settings right? I dont think theres anywhere in google chrome that you can turn off tracking telemetry to google.
        nickjj 2y ago
        > But Mozilla developed a way to uniquely track people without their consent or knowledge. Which setting is that, DNS over HTTPS? I switched back to Firefox the other day and this setting was enabled by default but it wasn't done silently. When you first launch Firefox a popup comes up saying it's going to be enabled but you have options to turn it off on the spot or click a link to learn more.
- yard2010 2y ago
  Use Vivaldi. Feel the internet like it's 2010 again. Vivaldi for the win.
  - Ygg2 2y ago
    Also Chromium based.
    - hoppyhoppy2 2y ago
      And closed-source
caseyy 2y ago
What are the odds that it’s not a conspiracy but simply someone at Google thinking it’s a brand they heard of and adding the tag? Or is that not how it works?
- null_deref 2y ago
  I think it’s almost always paid
  - hicallmeal 2y ago
    See sibling comment, it's genuinely just a form you fill in, and if you pass the (arguably low) Store standards, you'll get it. Extensions with ~200 users have them.
- hicallmeal 2y ago
  Not quite, one has to nominate their extension/apply for it(fill a form, via the dev support centre)[0], for the CWS team to then review it, where after 3-4 weeks they usually grant it - you mainly have to have a "good" listing and "follow best practices" [1]. You can only apply once every 6 months. In my opinion, either mass reporting, or (unlikely) a manual decision caused them to lose it. And after a while Honey likely applied again, where the reviewer was possibly unaware of past events. Or they were but it's not relevant to the review process. (Having millions of users may have played a part, the bigger exts might be treated differently, though I doubt it). Google doesn't really pay much mind to these things, from what I've seen. [0] I'm pretty sure there's a dev doc somewhere with this [1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/discovery#featured-badge https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/discovery#feature...
  - caseyy 2y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the information. With it in mind, I think (as you said) someone approved it without giving it much thought. Honey is a very well-known brand, but it's mostly technologists (and only some) who know about the recent scandal.
abenga 2y ago
Is it only released for specific regions? Not available for me.
- rany_ 2y ago
  Same, but I'm pretty sure it was available for me before. They might have geoblocked it to limit the spam 1 star reviews?
OuterVale 2y ago
Relevant previous discussion: Exposing the Honey Influencer Scam [video] - 253 points by jadyoyster (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42483500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42483500) uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind honey browser extension - 1057 points by extesy (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42576443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42576443)
- eertami 2y ago
  From the video linked: > "You're convinced you should buy the one recommended in his video so you scroll down and find the affiliate link to that product" Hold up, that's something people actually would do, click a link in a YouTube description instead of opening a new tab to search for it? Wild.
  - vinnymac 2y ago
    I expect most people are going to open the door right in front of them, rather than walk the long way to gain entry, even if they are aware the door is monitored by a security camera.
  - kevincox 2y ago
    Yeah, if someone I trust makes a recommendation I would much rather follow the link and get the right one than risk getting some scam. I hate when people say "I recommend Bubble App" and I need to search for it, I'm always worried that I get some other app with the same or similar name.
    - btown 2y ago
      It's also the case that e.g. Amazon will rarely show the exact product you search for, and will instead promote an equivalent product that pays them for placement - often extremely similar looking. Web searches are getting worse too, with AI-generated content letting scammy alternatives look more professional than ever. We're circling back to links being king.
  - mrkramer 2y ago
DeathArrow 2y ago
Google is following its philosophy of doing no evil. /s
Timshel 2y ago
How is it still at 4.6 stars ??? On Firefox it dropped to 2.9 ...
- dvh 2y ago
  They are probably using median
- nomilk 2y ago
  Lots of bad apps on Apple App Store also have surprisingly high average ratings. My best guess: the app asks the user whether they're enjoying it, if yes, asks for a review, if no, nothing.
  - sebazzz 2y ago
    Om the other hand, negative experiences would lead to a review earlier. You know, the loud negative majority.
  - braiamp 2y ago
    Firefox users are more informed and militant in how to make an effective evaluation on the site. Chrome users are governed by lowest common denominator.
  - klausa 2y ago
    This has been disallowed on the App Store for a couple of years now; but of course is completely unenforced.
- hicallmeal 2y ago
  In addition to a sibling comment about median, it could be that or that other common method (I forget, bayesion average? I think), but also consider - 176K reviews, 76 days since the _expose_, if it were 100 reviews a day on average, that's still 7.6K reviews. If it were 10K in the first few days, then 7.6K after, it's still ~10% of total reviews, where they likely had a ~4.6-8 score before hand. A drop in the bucket. And it's possible (though imo unlikely) that some reviews were removed, perhaps initially at least, due to suspected botting.
DecentShoes 2y ago
It's still on the store?! That's bad enough.
jahsome 2y ago
I absolutely love how fired up the average YouTube commenter was about Honey... for about 72 hours. People completely unaffected in any way were demanding class action lawsuits, etc with seemingly no clue why they were even upset. Then the subject completely left their minds. This observation is of course entirely anecdotal, but manufactured outrage is so fascinating, even if it currently eroding the very foundations of society.
- thinkingemote 2y ago
  Where a lot of online content to be consumed is about dopamine, a lot of other stuff is about spiking cortisol. There's people on every forum (and regularly here) that suggest, sometimes explicitly, that we must have elevated anxiety and stress levels in response to specific presented content as a moral imperative. I think cortisol makes the "content" feel more "important" or relevant at the present moment in time. 72 hours later assuming no other exploits our body systems adjust and the content isn't important. It's weird when we notice it, but most of the time our cortisol is being directed to another topic so we don't notice. There's a ton written about our dopamine addiction and how it's exploited but not much about cortisol and our negative emotions are being exploited.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - caseyy 2y ago
    Many people say that overthinking, anxiety, and stress are moral imperatives as a response to something they don't like: content, political ideas, celebrities, technology companies, and many other things. It is a completely ineffective method of making a change. I wish they'd stop spreading their anxieties online. I know it makes them feel like they're doing something, but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them.
    - lukan 2y ago
      "but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them." I don't think, the relevant decision makers are open for incoming calls from the internet, but I agree that panic and anxiety solves nothing, but creates just more problems.
sschueller 2y ago
Features the criminals and disables features required for uBlock to work... https://www.herzindagi.com/society-culture/google-chrome-update-popular-extensions-like-ublock-origin-and-other-adblockers-are-now-disabled-article-1020312 https://www.herzindagi.com/society-culture/google-chrome-upd...
- GuestFAUniverse 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
hicallmeal 2y ago
I said this in a reply comment, but it's likely Honey lost it due to mass reporting or _maybe_ (but unlikely) a manual decision, and now that time has passed, they've applied again (the badge "nomination" is just a form you fill in) after a short while and either the manual reviewer was unaware, or it just doesn't matter to the process, as the requirement are quite low. It's possible larger extensions (1+ mil) have some sway/means to contact internally, but imo Google really doesn't pay much heed to "controversial"/topical things (perhaps apart from ublock). Or developers in general. It becomes evident when you read some extensive related articles by Wladimir Palant (https://palant.info https://palant.info) [0] who does some pretty deep dives on the Chrome Store. I think he even developed Adblock Plus (the open-source version). [0] I'm unaffiliated, just a reader.
- hicallmeal 2y ago
  Just to add - you'll find Firefox pays much closer attention (evident by their quick move to remove the badge, and keep it that way) to these sorts of things, and are much more responsive.
- luxuryballs 2y ago
  when you say the manual reviewer was unaware, I think I’m out of the loop on some key detail, unaware of what?
  - hicallmeal 2y ago
    The person reviewing Honey's badge nomination/request could have been unaware of the controversy Honey has been in. Thus upon finding Honey meets the "standards" they grant the request, and Honey is once again "featured".
    - luxuryballs 2y ago
      thanks, after reading a few more comments I picked up on this but not exactly sure the nature of the controversy, something related to affiliate content creators?
- 2y ago
nashashmi 2y ago
Didn't honey change its name after the total backlash?
WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
The epitome of the modern Western culture: exploiting people in a shady way => featured, rewarded and protected Controversial take? no shit, sherlock
timeflex 2y ago
Here me out on this. A lot of people are in a bubble. Honey got popular because almost ever big influencer out there would market it, and they might still for all I know. People in their infinite wisdom trust these influencers, like those that trust David Pakman saying PIA is the most secure VPN, or the thousands of other influencers shilling for NordVPN. A vast majority of people don't know that there are other VPN providers out there, nor do they really care. What matters if how influencers make them feel about their decision. Now, if Google suddenly gets a spike in negative reviews, and a lot of them are from Chrome-connected accounts where they can see they've never downloaded that extension, or a lot of them appear to be from users who never used it, then they may have reason to remove or not weight those reviews the same. Just like where an establishment has built up a good reputation, and then something unpopular happens on camera and goes viral & so a bunch of people that have never been there flood the reviews. What seems most likely to me is that Honey is still a rather popular extension, that what might bother you or the techcentric groups you follow doesn't really matter to a vast majority of users. It may be unfortunate, especially if people are getting misled or Honey is engaged in corruption. If people cared about corruption companies like Comcast/Xfinity would be non-existent IMO. Unfortunately they don't. If people want Google to ban/unfeature Honey, then wouldn't it be better to have a court judgement declaring Honey broke the law, rather than doing it just because it was unpopular to a much smaller group of users than the ones that thought Honey was the greatest cause their favorite influencer told them it was?
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  People can't vet everything themselves, it's impossible. It must be exhausting to live under American capitalism, anything and everyone is a potential scam out to get your money. But that is what the American dream really is.
  - timeflex 2y ago
    No they can't, and even if they could you'd get people that would evaluate things based on criteria that probably has no value or in some cases could be seen as negative value, but to them it is important. Or in some instances, people believe that if they leave a positive review right away & the company does them bad, that the company will be more inclined to fix the problem.
ingohelpinger 2y ago
imagine what affiliate networks in general do, they shave and scrub your leads. classic explaination, "ohh it seems the pixel fell off, it didn't fire" bla bla bla, this is stealing, nothing else.
throwaway2037 2y ago
4.6 of 5 stars. The most recent comments are comedic gold. I highly recommend that you read them for a good laugh.
yapyap 2y ago
Keeping honey and trying to drown uBlock Origin. Corporations never change
thrance 2y ago
I still don't understand why most people got so angry about this, the extension does what it says it does: search for coupons in some kind of database. It seldom works but you don't lose much by trying. The ones getting "scammed" out of a few referral sales are the ones advertising shitty products with no care whatsoever. Maybe they should have read the fine prints? Maybe the real lesson here is to do your due diligence before pushing garbage products to your fans?
- kalleboo 2y ago
  It also lies to its users - they will "affiliate" with stores and the stores can then choose which coupons are shown, so you don't actually get the best coupon. Even if it's not a huge deal in the scheme of things it's definitely a case of false advertising
- perching_aix 2y ago
  > does what it says it does But it doesn't. What it says it does (or at least used to, maybe they've changed it) is "find the best coupons" for you in that database. Instead, they collude with merchants, and do not necessarily give you the best coupons they're aware of, or even falsely claim they do not have any coupons in their database at all. > The ones getting "scammed" out of a few referral sales are the ones advertising shitty products with no care whatsoever You're unable to know this / this is an opinion. > Maybe they should have read the fine prints? What fine prints are you referring to? > Maybe the real lesson here is to do your due diligence before pushing garbage products to your fans? In the original reporting there was another similar extension featured that did not use to do this, but has since started engaging in this same behavior. For all anyone knows, this could have happened to Honey as well.
  - kin 2y ago
    Sounds like you are taking MegaLags’ video without a grain of salt. Honey does not touch Amazon affiliate links (you can test this) and yet many enraged influencers just use Amazon affiliate links. Did you ever test for yourself to see that Honey was not finding you the best coupon? You can test this too. There’s a reason the second video is taking so long. Yes, some codes are requested to be removed by merchants. You’ll find that these typically are of the friends and family variety with steep discounts. In my experience, if the coupon is public, Honey will try to use it.
i_love_retros 2y ago
Did I miss a big story? What's PayPal honey and why is this significant?
- perching_aix 2y ago
  You did. PayPal Honey, formerly just Honey, is a browser extension that claims to "help with finding coupons" at webshop checkouts so that you get the "best deal". It was then found that it also steals all commissions at those checkout points, and instead of finding you a "best deal", it colludes with the merchants, allowing them to control how many people get what kind of "deals", completely defeating the point.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > instead of finding you a "best deal", it colludes with the merchants, allowing them to control how many people get what kind of "deals", completely defeating the point. This is how "deals" have always worked, to the extent to the current technology makes it possible. Companies don't issue "deals" to be pro consumer, they do it because it benefits them, and they do it in ways that benefit them. For example, they would mail coupons two a few zip codes but not actually mark down the prices unless you actually possess a coupon. That's just a low-tech version of what you're describing. I'm honestly surprised that people are surprised by this aspect of Honey. The hijacking of affiliate links is one thing, but coupons have always been a way for businesses to influence consumer behavior. Who did people think Honey's real customer was, given that the extension is free?
    - perching_aix 2y ago
      None of this makes their claim not misleading and not a lie.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Sure, but it's as much a lie as "deals" ever are. The whole concept has always been in the business's favor, not consumers', and if something like Honey leads to a lot of people learning that truth, so much the better.
noAnswer 2y ago
There is no difference between honey and malware other than the later gets attacked by anti viruses. They literally do the same thing. Stealing referrals. We live in the most corrupt timeline.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  I haven't heard of Honey recruiting computers into a DDOS-for-hire botnet, or providing remote desktop access to an attacker, or stealing financial details and draining bank accounts, or bricking computers on purpose, or encrypting files and holding them for random. Are you sure there's no difference and they literally do the same thing? At the same time, I've not heard of a virus stealing referrals, but I wouldn't be surprised there. Just seems really uncommon among malware, compared to all the other stuff malware does and Honey doesn't. Honestly, I thought everybody understood referrals are how "free" coupon sites and coupon extensions got their money to continue existing. Did folks think that Honey was spending that money, building that product and infrastructure, out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than as part of a business? It seems like the only reason this extension out of many is getting attention, is because some rich internet video stars took money to promote it and regret doing so because it ended up making them less money than they hoped. No caring about their fans (for example, educating them, "don't install coupon extensions, they're usually spyware"), I guess because that's less profitable than exploiting them for $$$
yalogin 2y ago
Honey and similar extensions are just monitoring every activity in the browser. I would have been surprised even if these were moderately successful but never expected them to be sold for billions. I would never have thought people would happily let themselves be monitored like this for deals when everything is on Amazon already
- mrkramer 2y ago
  > I would never have thought people would happily let themselves be monitored like this Enter Facebook and Google.
  - rocketvole 2y ago
    the point is that the service that honey provides doesn't seem to warrant selling your entire browsing activity. At least facebook and google provide a means of communication that is difficult, sometimes impossible, to provide elsewhere on the internet
    - mrkramer 2y ago
      Google Analytics and Facebook Pixel will put you in some group e.g. ice cream lovers so when you search Google or scroll Facebook feed they will show you ice cream ads.
    - soraminazuki 2y ago
      Facebook and Google are creating a solution to a problem they themselves created by killing competition and the open web. That's the only reason it may appear that alternative means of communications is "difficult" or "sometimes impossible."
  - yalogin 2y ago
    At least they had to build elaborate services to lure people in. This honey is just a 1999/2000 idea and tech that somehow made money in this day and age. Weird.
- perching_aix 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mrkramer 2y ago
So YouTubers and their fans destroyed PayPal's $4 billion acquisition of Honey....this is like GameStop stoks reloaded. I'm fine with that because PayPal is yet another fishy and scammy tech company that presents itself as savior of Web users' privacy and security. People go crypto. Stablecoins will eventually win.
OutOfHere 2y ago
It will all make sense when we acknowledge that Chrome is malware.

324 points by dvh 2y ago

djfivyvusn 2y ago

Probably getting a kickback.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hart_russell 2y ago

Getting rid of manifest v2 and propping up a scam extension. Chrome is looking more and more disgusting

relistan 2y ago
You have to think about how Google abandoned Firefox, which at the time was quite good, in order to build their own browser. It was always about control and owning the data. They fund their business with advertising spread all over the internet. Manifest v2 allowed their browser to run extensions that block the ads that pay for Chrome to exist.
- rafram 2y ago
  Firefox was OK. I think people forget how much better it’s become since Chrome came out. V8 was so much faster than SpiderMonkey at first. (I would argue that Chrome was targeted primarily at IE, though.)
  - relistan 2y ago
    I used both at the time. I think you are overstating the difference. There wasn't as much full-on JS on the web and for all the things people normally did, FF did not struggle at all. If Chrome had been aimed primarily at IE, they could have continued to fund Firefox, or could have worked with Mozilla to do whatever improvements they wanted. For example, if the objective had been speed, Google had so much clout with Mozilla at the time that I feel pretty certain they could have contributed to building something like v8 into Firefox. But it wasn't about any of that. It was about owning the browser because they decided it was in their strategic interest. And that's because their business was by that point entirely funded by people's eyeballs in a browser, looking at ads.
    - rafram 2y ago
      They did continue to fund Firefox. $555 million in 2023!
eitland 2y ago
I keep wondering why people on HN use Chrome at all three days. There was a couple of years when people posted demos that only worked in IE^H Chrome but right now everything I need works in Firefox and I don't even see demos that need Chrome anymore.
- imcritic 2y ago
  Because Mozilla is as evil as google is and their browser is generally worse than chrome on average. We are now just entering a timeline where chrome nose dives on that comparison chart of "who is better?" with compared to Firefox.
  - stanac 2y ago
    I won't go into whether FF is worse than chrome, but why do you think Mozilla is as evil as google?
    - withinboredom 2y ago
      I don't know why they particularly think that. But Mozilla developed a way to uniquely track people without their consent or knowledge. I am not ok with that and that is evil to me.
      - alt227 2y ago
        But you can still turn it off in the settings right? I dont think theres anywhere in google chrome that you can turn off tracking telemetry to google.
      - nickjj 2y ago
        > But Mozilla developed a way to uniquely track people without their consent or knowledge. Which setting is that, DNS over HTTPS? I switched back to Firefox the other day and this setting was enabled by default but it wasn't done silently. When you first launch Firefox a popup comes up saying it's going to be enabled but you have options to turn it off on the spot or click a link to learn more.
yard2010 2y ago
Use Vivaldi. Feel the internet like it's 2010 again. Vivaldi for the win.
- Ygg2 2y ago
  Also Chromium based.
  - hoppyhoppy2 2y ago
    And closed-source

caseyy 2y ago

What are the odds that it’s not a conspiracy but simply someone at Google thinking it’s a brand they heard of and adding the tag? Or is that not how it works?

null_deref 2y ago
I think it’s almost always paid
- hicallmeal 2y ago
  See sibling comment, it's genuinely just a form you fill in, and if you pass the (arguably low) Store standards, you'll get it. Extensions with ~200 users have them.
hicallmeal 2y ago
Not quite, one has to nominate their extension/apply for it(fill a form, via the dev support centre)[0], for the CWS team to then review it, where after 3-4 weeks they usually grant it - you mainly have to have a "good" listing and "follow best practices" [1]. You can only apply once every 6 months. In my opinion, either mass reporting, or (unlikely) a manual decision caused them to lose it. And after a while Honey likely applied again, where the reviewer was possibly unaware of past events. Or they were but it's not relevant to the review process. (Having millions of users may have played a part, the bigger exts might be treated differently, though I doubt it). Google doesn't really pay much mind to these things, from what I've seen. [0] I'm pretty sure there's a dev doc somewhere with this [1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/discovery#featured-badge https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/discovery#feature...
- caseyy 2y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the information. With it in mind, I think (as you said) someone approved it without giving it much thought. Honey is a very well-known brand, but it's mostly technologists (and only some) who know about the recent scandal.

abenga 2y ago

Is it only released for specific regions? Not available for me.

rany_ 2y ago
Same, but I'm pretty sure it was available for me before. They might have geoblocked it to limit the spam 1 star reviews?

OuterVale 2y ago

Relevant previous discussion: Exposing the Honey Influencer Scam [video] - 253 points by jadyoyster (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42483500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42483500) uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind honey browser extension - 1057 points by extesy (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42576443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42576443)

eertami 2y ago
From the video linked: > "You're convinced you should buy the one recommended in his video so you scroll down and find the affiliate link to that product" Hold up, that's something people actually would do, click a link in a YouTube description instead of opening a new tab to search for it? Wild.
- vinnymac 2y ago
  I expect most people are going to open the door right in front of them, rather than walk the long way to gain entry, even if they are aware the door is monitored by a security camera.
- kevincox 2y ago
  Yeah, if someone I trust makes a recommendation I would much rather follow the link and get the right one than risk getting some scam. I hate when people say "I recommend Bubble App" and I need to search for it, I'm always worried that I get some other app with the same or similar name.
  - btown 2y ago
    It's also the case that e.g. Amazon will rarely show the exact product you search for, and will instead promote an equivalent product that pays them for placement - often extremely similar looking. Web searches are getting worse too, with AI-generated content letting scammy alternatives look more professional than ever. We're circling back to links being king.
- mrkramer 2y ago

DeathArrow 2y ago

Google is following its philosophy of doing no evil. /s

Timshel 2y ago

How is it still at 4.6 stars ??? On Firefox it dropped to 2.9 ...

dvh 2y ago
They are probably using median
nomilk 2y ago
Lots of bad apps on Apple App Store also have surprisingly high average ratings. My best guess: the app asks the user whether they're enjoying it, if yes, asks for a review, if no, nothing.
- sebazzz 2y ago
  Om the other hand, negative experiences would lead to a review earlier. You know, the loud negative majority.
- braiamp 2y ago
  Firefox users are more informed and militant in how to make an effective evaluation on the site. Chrome users are governed by lowest common denominator.
- klausa 2y ago
  This has been disallowed on the App Store for a couple of years now; but of course is completely unenforced.
hicallmeal 2y ago
In addition to a sibling comment about median, it could be that or that other common method (I forget, bayesion average? I think), but also consider - 176K reviews, 76 days since the _expose_, if it were 100 reviews a day on average, that's still 7.6K reviews. If it were 10K in the first few days, then 7.6K after, it's still ~10% of total reviews, where they likely had a ~4.6-8 score before hand. A drop in the bucket. And it's possible (though imo unlikely) that some reviews were removed, perhaps initially at least, due to suspected botting.

DecentShoes 2y ago

It's still on the store?! That's bad enough.

jahsome 2y ago

I absolutely love how fired up the average YouTube commenter was about Honey... for about 72 hours. People completely unaffected in any way were demanding class action lawsuits, etc with seemingly no clue why they were even upset. Then the subject completely left their minds. This observation is of course entirely anecdotal, but manufactured outrage is so fascinating, even if it currently eroding the very foundations of society.

thinkingemote 2y ago
Where a lot of online content to be consumed is about dopamine, a lot of other stuff is about spiking cortisol. There's people on every forum (and regularly here) that suggest, sometimes explicitly, that we must have elevated anxiety and stress levels in response to specific presented content as a moral imperative. I think cortisol makes the "content" feel more "important" or relevant at the present moment in time. 72 hours later assuming no other exploits our body systems adjust and the content isn't important. It's weird when we notice it, but most of the time our cortisol is being directed to another topic so we don't notice. There's a ton written about our dopamine addiction and how it's exploited but not much about cortisol and our negative emotions are being exploited.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- caseyy 2y ago
  Many people say that overthinking, anxiety, and stress are moral imperatives as a response to something they don't like: content, political ideas, celebrities, technology companies, and many other things. It is a completely ineffective method of making a change. I wish they'd stop spreading their anxieties online. I know it makes them feel like they're doing something, but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them.
  - lukan 2y ago
    "but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them." I don't think, the relevant decision makers are open for incoming calls from the internet, but I agree that panic and anxiety solves nothing, but creates just more problems.

sschueller 2y ago

Features the criminals and disables features required for uBlock to work... https://www.herzindagi.com/society-culture/google-chrome-update-popular-extensions-like-ublock-origin-and-other-adblockers-are-now-disabled-article-1020312 https://www.herzindagi.com/society-culture/google-chrome-upd...

GuestFAUniverse 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

hicallmeal 2y ago

I said this in a reply comment, but it's likely Honey lost it due to mass reporting or _maybe_ (but unlikely) a manual decision, and now that time has passed, they've applied again (the badge "nomination" is just a form you fill in) after a short while and either the manual reviewer was unaware, or it just doesn't matter to the process, as the requirement are quite low. It's possible larger extensions (1+ mil) have some sway/means to contact internally, but imo Google really doesn't pay much heed to "controversial"/topical things (perhaps apart from ublock). Or developers in general. It becomes evident when you read some extensive related articles by Wladimir Palant (https://palant.info https://palant.info) [0] who does some pretty deep dives on the Chrome Store. I think he even developed Adblock Plus (the open-source version). [0] I'm unaffiliated, just a reader.

hicallmeal 2y ago
Just to add - you'll find Firefox pays much closer attention (evident by their quick move to remove the badge, and keep it that way) to these sorts of things, and are much more responsive.
luxuryballs 2y ago
when you say the manual reviewer was unaware, I think I’m out of the loop on some key detail, unaware of what?
- hicallmeal 2y ago
  The person reviewing Honey's badge nomination/request could have been unaware of the controversy Honey has been in. Thus upon finding Honey meets the "standards" they grant the request, and Honey is once again "featured".
  - luxuryballs 2y ago
    thanks, after reading a few more comments I picked up on this but not exactly sure the nature of the controversy, something related to affiliate content creators?
2y ago

nashashmi 2y ago

Didn't honey change its name after the total backlash?

WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago

The epitome of the modern Western culture: exploiting people in a shady way => featured, rewarded and protected Controversial take? no shit, sherlock

timeflex 2y ago

Here me out on this. A lot of people are in a bubble. Honey got popular because almost ever big influencer out there would market it, and they might still for all I know. People in their infinite wisdom trust these influencers, like those that trust David Pakman saying PIA is the most secure VPN, or the thousands of other influencers shilling for NordVPN. A vast majority of people don't know that there are other VPN providers out there, nor do they really care. What matters if how influencers make them feel about their decision. Now, if Google suddenly gets a spike in negative reviews, and a lot of them are from Chrome-connected accounts where they can see they've never downloaded that extension, or a lot of them appear to be from users who never used it, then they may have reason to remove or not weight those reviews the same. Just like where an establishment has built up a good reputation, and then something unpopular happens on camera and goes viral & so a bunch of people that have never been there flood the reviews. What seems most likely to me is that Honey is still a rather popular extension, that what might bother you or the techcentric groups you follow doesn't really matter to a vast majority of users. It may be unfortunate, especially if people are getting misled or Honey is engaged in corruption. If people cared about corruption companies like Comcast/Xfinity would be non-existent IMO. Unfortunately they don't. If people want Google to ban/unfeature Honey, then wouldn't it be better to have a court judgement declaring Honey broke the law, rather than doing it just because it was unpopular to a much smaller group of users than the ones that thought Honey was the greatest cause their favorite influencer told them it was?

Hikikomori 2y ago
People can't vet everything themselves, it's impossible. It must be exhausting to live under American capitalism, anything and everyone is a potential scam out to get your money. But that is what the American dream really is.
- timeflex 2y ago
  No they can't, and even if they could you'd get people that would evaluate things based on criteria that probably has no value or in some cases could be seen as negative value, but to them it is important. Or in some instances, people believe that if they leave a positive review right away & the company does them bad, that the company will be more inclined to fix the problem.

ingohelpinger 2y ago

imagine what affiliate networks in general do, they shave and scrub your leads. classic explaination, "ohh it seems the pixel fell off, it didn't fire" bla bla bla, this is stealing, nothing else.

throwaway2037 2y ago

4.6 of 5 stars. The most recent comments are comedic gold. I highly recommend that you read them for a good laugh.

yapyap 2y ago

Keeping honey and trying to drown uBlock Origin. Corporations never change

thrance 2y ago

I still don't understand why most people got so angry about this, the extension does what it says it does: search for coupons in some kind of database. It seldom works but you don't lose much by trying. The ones getting "scammed" out of a few referral sales are the ones advertising shitty products with no care whatsoever. Maybe they should have read the fine prints? Maybe the real lesson here is to do your due diligence before pushing garbage products to your fans?

kalleboo 2y ago
It also lies to its users - they will "affiliate" with stores and the stores can then choose which coupons are shown, so you don't actually get the best coupon. Even if it's not a huge deal in the scheme of things it's definitely a case of false advertising
perching_aix 2y ago
> does what it says it does But it doesn't. What it says it does (or at least used to, maybe they've changed it) is "find the best coupons" for you in that database. Instead, they collude with merchants, and do not necessarily give you the best coupons they're aware of, or even falsely claim they do not have any coupons in their database at all. > The ones getting "scammed" out of a few referral sales are the ones advertising shitty products with no care whatsoever You're unable to know this / this is an opinion. > Maybe they should have read the fine prints? What fine prints are you referring to? > Maybe the real lesson here is to do your due diligence before pushing garbage products to your fans? In the original reporting there was another similar extension featured that did not use to do this, but has since started engaging in this same behavior. For all anyone knows, this could have happened to Honey as well.
- kin 2y ago
  Sounds like you are taking MegaLags’ video without a grain of salt. Honey does not touch Amazon affiliate links (you can test this) and yet many enraged influencers just use Amazon affiliate links. Did you ever test for yourself to see that Honey was not finding you the best coupon? You can test this too. There’s a reason the second video is taking so long. Yes, some codes are requested to be removed by merchants. You’ll find that these typically are of the friends and family variety with steep discounts. In my experience, if the coupon is public, Honey will try to use it.

i_love_retros 2y ago

Did I miss a big story? What's PayPal honey and why is this significant?

perching_aix 2y ago
You did. PayPal Honey, formerly just Honey, is a browser extension that claims to "help with finding coupons" at webshop checkouts so that you get the "best deal". It was then found that it also steals all commissions at those checkout points, and instead of finding you a "best deal", it colludes with the merchants, allowing them to control how many people get what kind of "deals", completely defeating the point.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > instead of finding you a "best deal", it colludes with the merchants, allowing them to control how many people get what kind of "deals", completely defeating the point. This is how "deals" have always worked, to the extent to the current technology makes it possible. Companies don't issue "deals" to be pro consumer, they do it because it benefits them, and they do it in ways that benefit them. For example, they would mail coupons two a few zip codes but not actually mark down the prices unless you actually possess a coupon. That's just a low-tech version of what you're describing. I'm honestly surprised that people are surprised by this aspect of Honey. The hijacking of affiliate links is one thing, but coupons have always been a way for businesses to influence consumer behavior. Who did people think Honey's real customer was, given that the extension is free?
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    None of this makes their claim not misleading and not a lie.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Sure, but it's as much a lie as "deals" ever are. The whole concept has always been in the business's favor, not consumers', and if something like Honey leads to a lot of people learning that truth, so much the better.

noAnswer 2y ago

There is no difference between honey and malware other than the later gets attacked by anti viruses. They literally do the same thing. Stealing referrals. We live in the most corrupt timeline.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
I haven't heard of Honey recruiting computers into a DDOS-for-hire botnet, or providing remote desktop access to an attacker, or stealing financial details and draining bank accounts, or bricking computers on purpose, or encrypting files and holding them for random. Are you sure there's no difference and they literally do the same thing? At the same time, I've not heard of a virus stealing referrals, but I wouldn't be surprised there. Just seems really uncommon among malware, compared to all the other stuff malware does and Honey doesn't. Honestly, I thought everybody understood referrals are how "free" coupon sites and coupon extensions got their money to continue existing. Did folks think that Honey was spending that money, building that product and infrastructure, out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than as part of a business? It seems like the only reason this extension out of many is getting attention, is because some rich internet video stars took money to promote it and regret doing so because it ended up making them less money than they hoped. No caring about their fans (for example, educating them, "don't install coupon extensions, they're usually spyware"), I guess because that's less profitable than exploiting them for $$$

yalogin 2y ago

Honey and similar extensions are just monitoring every activity in the browser. I would have been surprised even if these were moderately successful but never expected them to be sold for billions. I would never have thought people would happily let themselves be monitored like this for deals when everything is on Amazon already

mrkramer 2y ago
> I would never have thought people would happily let themselves be monitored like this Enter Facebook and Google.
- rocketvole 2y ago
  the point is that the service that honey provides doesn't seem to warrant selling your entire browsing activity. At least facebook and google provide a means of communication that is difficult, sometimes impossible, to provide elsewhere on the internet
  - mrkramer 2y ago
    Google Analytics and Facebook Pixel will put you in some group e.g. ice cream lovers so when you search Google or scroll Facebook feed they will show you ice cream ads.
  - soraminazuki 2y ago
    Facebook and Google are creating a solution to a problem they themselves created by killing competition and the open web. That's the only reason it may appear that alternative means of communications is "difficult" or "sometimes impossible."
- yalogin 2y ago
  At least they had to build elaborate services to lure people in. This honey is just a 1999/2000 idea and tech that somehow made money in this day and age. Weird.
perching_aix 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mrkramer 2y ago

So YouTubers and their fans destroyed PayPal's $4 billion acquisition of Honey....this is like GameStop stoks reloaded. I'm fine with that because PayPal is yet another fishy and scammy tech company that presents itself as savior of Web users' privacy and security. People go crypto. Stablecoins will eventually win.

OutOfHere 2y ago

It will all make sense when we acknowledge that Chrome is malware.