Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 469 posts

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#101

Post by bravoetch »

max_ wrote: post #9

Why can't people just run businesses decently without deception & scams? I'm sure they can be profitable. This deceptive behaviour actually makes the business loose customers in the long term.

> Why can't people just run businesses decently without deception & scams?

1 - Because investors are now the customer. There is no incentive to solve a problem or provide a product for end-users, only to funnel money to investors. That is the business model. 2 - The attention economy is run entirely on deception. Without solving someone's problem, the best option is to keep their attention and prevent them realizing they don't need a subscription. Literally addicting people to notifications and scrolling.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#103

Post by LocalH »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #39
max_ wrote: post #9

Why can't people just run businesses decently without deception & scams? I'm sure they can be profitable. This deceptive behaviour actually makes the business loose customers in the long term.

Businesses which quietly do the right thing don't make the news.

Even worse, businesses which quietly do the right thing have their lunch eaten by those who don't.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#104

Post by chinathrow »

twostorytower wrote: post #88
alsetmusic wrote: post #83

This isn’t the first time they’ve been accused of shady practices. > MegaLag also says Honey will hijack affiliate revenue from influencers. According to MegaLag, if you click on an affiliate link from an influencer, Honey will then swap in its own tracking link when you interact with its deal pop-up at check-out. That’s regardless of whether Honey found you a coupon or not, and it results in Honey getting the credit…

[flagged]

I watched the video and I am pretty sure that the rage is warranted at this time. There is plenty of context given: Honey and their browser extension is swapping out cookies and lying about it to the end user - it does not matter if "everyone else is doing it as well". It's bad and it needs to stop.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#105

Post by rdedev »

twostorytower wrote: post #88
alsetmusic wrote: post #83

This isn’t the first time they’ve been accused of shady practices. > MegaLag also says Honey will hijack affiliate revenue from influencers. According to MegaLag, if you click on an affiliate link from an influencer, Honey will then swap in its own tracking link when you interact with its deal pop-up at check-out. That’s regardless of whether Honey found you a coupon or not, and it results in Honey getting the credit…

[flagged]

Afaik the scam is honey telling users they find the best coupon but also letting shops dictate what coupons honey shows to the user. If I remember it right, the video also shows honey replacing the attribution cookie with its own even if it did not find any coupon

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#106

Post by unclad5968 »

twostorytower wrote: post #92
dmazzoni wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose a company like Honey should make a profit without deception and scams? Their product is supposedly: install a FREE extension and you get discount codes applied for you at retailers when you check out. It turns out they were able to be profitable by making themselves the affiliate every time you purchase something, but that's scammy because it's stealing from others who actually generated the referr…

Why do you assume they are always stealing a referral from somebody? Do you think everything people buy comes from a prior affiliate link? Yes, Honey makes money from affiliate commission. That money is funded by the merchants who voluntarily choose to partner with Honey. How is that scammy? In the rare case there is a prior referral, yes last click attribution comes into play. But that's the same for every shopping…

> last click attribution comes into play

Thats an extremely generous way to say that they steal referrals from genuine affiliate partners.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#107

Post by tanduv »

twostorytower wrote: post #92
dmazzoni wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose a company like Honey should make a profit without deception and scams? Their product is supposedly: install a FREE extension and you get discount codes applied for you at retailers when you check out. It turns out they were able to be profitable by making themselves the affiliate every time you purchase something, but that's scammy because it's stealing from others who actually generated the referr…

Why do you assume they are always stealing a referral from somebody? Do you think everything people buy comes from a prior affiliate link? Yes, Honey makes money from affiliate commission. That money is funded by the merchants who voluntarily choose to partner with Honey. How is that scammy? In the rare case there is a prior referral, yes last click attribution comes into play. But that's the same for every shopping…

If I understood MegaLag's video correctly, Honey was indeed overriding an affiliate session cookie with their own once the user the reached the checkout. The extension would silently open a tab in the background, which seems pretty scummy. I've observed the same background tab shenanigans with the Capital One extension as well.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#108

Post by mzajc »

mx20 wrote: post #100

Is he correct? That you can't have GPL files in your project without all code adhering to it? I thought it has to be linked static. So just calling a GPLed js library likely wouldn't be enough. I think the law is muddy here and not clear at all, even if the code is directly bundled.

I am not a lawyer so I can't say with certainty, but judging by the exchange between Richard Stallman and Bruno Haible, the author of CLISP, it may well be required: https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/default/tree/doc/Wh...

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#109

Post by mainframed »

Sephr wrote: post #34

To be fair, Honey could easily bypass the blocklist redistribution legal issue by downloading filter lists at runtime from the official source. Then they aren't redistributing the resources. Update: It looks like they're also using code from uBO without attribution or authorization. That's most likely illegal.

I would be careful handing out legal advice as a non-legal expert, especially when it is about "bypassing legal issues". You might be doing someone a big disservice.

@readers: Obligatory notice: Don't base your business decision on random internet comments.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#110

Post by TeMPOraL »

blibble wrote: post #41
zb3 wrote: post #4

If something is "heavily promoted by influencers", it's garbage. Would it make a difference if this garbage was GPL licensed?

personally I think it's hilarious that "influencers" were taking a pittance to unknowingly cut off their affiliate income and not just cut it off once, but cut it off forever and as a bonus: cut it off for all other influencers too

Adtech cancer grew so big it constantly gets its own cancers.
Post reply on HN