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

Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

vptdigital.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 175 posts

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#21

Post by arionmiles »

quesera wrote: post #13
arionmiles wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's something seriously wrong with this archived link. It's not staying still for one moment. It's constantly twitching and the text scrolls to weird positions. It's unreadable because of this. Is it the archive at fault or is the original webpage this way?

Disable JavaScript, reason #99e99. Works for me here, and in 90% of the cases where someone complains of annoying page behaviour (cookie banners, revenue optimizations, subscription solicitations, "click here to ...", paywalls, ads, et alii ad nauseam). Seriously, just disable JavaScript on unknown/untrusted/undeserving sites. It makes the web tolerable.

ah well... this is a first for me where I need to disable JS. Thanks!

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#22

Post by bryan_w »

I used to work for an ad tech company (which I know already makes me the devil to some around here), and even I think that they crossed a line with this. A lot of industry terms are coded in corporate speak to make them sound better (think "revealed preferences" or "enabling personalization"), but I would genuinely like to know what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature. There doesn't seem to be a legit way to spin it.

Making a product to explicitly skirt agreements while working for a corporation is ... a choice

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#23

Post by collingreen »

choult wrote: post #17
delusional wrote: post #16

Likening any of this to Volkswagen emissions compliance scandal does a huge disservice by treating "Affiliate Marketing" as far too important. "Who gets a kickback on this toothbrush" is a much MUCH less important question than "do you pollute the air we are all breathing".

It's comparing Honey's behavior to a well-known and comprehended scandal. Simile is a tried and tested way (hah!) to explain otherwise potentially hard to understand or dry content. It's not about the severity of the impact, its the fact that they were breaking the rules and explicitly coding to actively avoid being caught by testers.

Probably better to compare to ubers grayball although that may be less well known.

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#25

Post by AkshatJ27 »

flkiwi wrote: post #24

Didn't this Honey fraud thing break like a year ago (or longer)? This is the second story I've seen about it in the last couple of days and I guess I'm surprised it's even still around.

The youtuber MegaLag released part 1 of his investigation roughly 1 year ago: https://youtu.be/vc4yL3YTwWk

Recently, he released 2 more parts with more new information that paints Honey in a pretty bad light: https://youtu.be/qCGT_CKGgFE https://youtu.be/wwB3FmbcC88

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#26

Post by Waterluvian »

bryan_w wrote: post #22

I used to work for an ad tech company (which I know already makes me the devil to some around here), and even I think that they crossed a line with this. A lot of industry terms are coded in corporate speak to make them sound better (think "revealed preferences" or "enabling personalization"), but I would genuinely like to know what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature.…

> what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature.

Possibly a version of, “I lack the freedom to operate with a moral code at work because I’m probably replaceable, the job market makes me anxious, my family’s well-being and healthcare are tied to having a job, and I don’t believe the government has my back.”

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#27

Post by flkiwi »

AkshatJ27 wrote: post #25
flkiwi wrote: post #24

Didn't this Honey fraud thing break like a year ago (or longer)? This is the second story I've seen about it in the last couple of days and I guess I'm surprised it's even still around.

The youtuber MegaLag released part 1 of his investigation roughly 1 year ago: https://youtu.be/vc4yL3YTwWk Recently, he released 2 more parts with more new information that paints Honey in a pretty bad light: https://youtu.be/qCGT_CKGgFE https://youtu.be/wwB3FmbcC88

Thank you. I was confused about why this was suddenly bubbling up again. And ... paints Honey in a pretty bad light? LOL, they already looked like a fraudster scam to begin with! (But, again, thank you.)

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#28

Post by dbtc »

Waterluvian wrote: post #26
bryan_w wrote: post #22

I used to work for an ad tech company (which I know already makes me the devil to some around here), and even I think that they crossed a line with this. A lot of industry terms are coded in corporate speak to make them sound better (think "revealed preferences" or "enabling personalization"), but I would genuinely like to know what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature.…

> what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature. Possibly a version of, “I lack the freedom to operate with a moral code at work because I’m probably replaceable, the job market makes me anxious, my family’s well-being and healthcare are tied to having a job, and I don’t believe the government has my back.”

Also likely, some version of "get dat money"

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#29

Post by Aurornis »

Waterluvian wrote: post #26
bryan_w wrote: post #22

I used to work for an ad tech company (which I know already makes me the devil to some around here), and even I think that they crossed a line with this. A lot of industry terms are coded in corporate speak to make them sound better (think "revealed preferences" or "enabling personalization"), but I would genuinely like to know what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature.…

> what the engineers thought when doing design reviews for a "selective stand down" feature. Possibly a version of, “I lack the freedom to operate with a moral code at work because I’m probably replaceable, the job market makes me anxious, my family’s well-being and healthcare are tied to having a job, and I don’t believe the government has my back.”

From my experience, it’s more likely that the engineers who got far enough in the company to be working on this code believed that their willingness to work on nefarious tasks that others might refuse or whistle-blow made them a trusted asset within the company.

In industries like this there’s also a mindset of “Who cares, it’s all going to corporations anyway, why not send some of that money to the corporation that writes my paychecks?”

Re: Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and tricking testers

#30

Post by Dylan16807 »

collingreen wrote: post #23
choult wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's comparing Honey's behavior to a well-known and comprehended scandal. Simile is a tried and tested way (hah!) to explain otherwise potentially hard to understand or dry content. It's not about the severity of the impact, its the fact that they were breaking the rules and explicitly coding to actively avoid being caught by testers.

Probably better to compare to ubers grayball although that may be less well known.

Refusing service (and showing a fake status screen) is in the same ballpark, but dieselgate is a much closer match. They couldn't avoid being put under test, so they had separate behavior based on whether heuristics said it was in a testing environment.
Post reply on HN