111–120 of 469 posts
I know it’s not necessarily the same people, but it feels contradictory for this community to say “copyright infringement isn’t theft” when we’re talking about movies, but use the opposite language when talking about GPL source code.
You can live in the gift economy or the money economy. Taking stuff from the gift economy and selling it is gross.
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…
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.
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
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…
I know it’s not necessarily the same people, but it feels contradictory for this community to say “copyright infringement isn’t theft” when we’re talking about movies, but use the opposite language when talking about GPL source code.
People are willing to let behavior slide when it aligns with their interests, but will call it out when the "other team" does it.
- Copyright abuse of games, movies, commercial software vs open source software
- Censorship of conservative speech vs censorship of liberal speech
- Genocide of one geopolitical entity vs another geopolitical entity
- Separation of church/state with mandated removal of religious symbols from students and government places vs freedom of religion with removal of LGBT symbols from students and government places
- Use of executive branch authority for [liberal goal] vs [conservative goal]
It's the same behavior on both sides, just different groups of people doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
So like I said, there are some legitimate problems with the affiliate industry, but the rage should be directed at the affiliate networks that dictate the terms. They could easily switch to first click attribution which would solve this problem.
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
I know it’s not necessarily the same people, but it feels contradictory for this community to say “copyright infringement isn’t theft” when we’re talking about movies, but use the opposite language when talking about GPL source code.
If copyright infringement isn't theft (our goal), then it doesn't matter.
Hope that makes some sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 an…
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can live in the gift economy or the money economy. Taking stuff from the gift economy and selling it is gross.
I agree completely, and yet I would still prefer language to be used consistently.
Sure they'll use IP as a means to an end, but that doesn't mean they believe IP is a good idea in general. It's just one of few tools that exist to solve it.
In an ideal world all software would be forced to be FOSS, and we'd have to come up with ways of funding it that aren't based on artificial scarcity.