251–260 of 469 posts
As if Honey isn't already under enough fire with half the youtube world releasing videos about their shady practices.
And yet consumers aren't appalled at what the kick back on a conversion is. Online advertising is a cesspool that makes things more expensive not less. Honey isnt a problem it's a symptom.
Because they have absolutely no idea.
Where would they ever run across that information?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My account is 11 years old. How dare I try to share a perspective as somebody who worked in the affiliate industry.
Your behavior in this thread is spammy and your perspective boils down to "everyone in the industry ratfucks creators, so the video is ragebait". Why do you feel compelled to defend clearly unethical behavior?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> stealing from the public domain How is it stealing from the public domain if it’s intellectual property you’ve created? Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?
> Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck? I don't necessarily agree with GP or you, but this isn't a good argument because anyone other than libertarians (i.e. anyone who supports taxation), which in practice is pretty much everyone, does believe that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
They ask the user first. That's all they need to do. "Do you have the right to share this? Great, let's go!" That's plenty. If you're asking them to do more, you're wildly out of touch with how any of this works.
Consider if I ran a file upload site, someone uploads The Lion King, my software asks them if they have the right to give this to me to distribute, they say yes, I then distribute the upload to many other users who pay me for it. Honey is paid in a round about way but they are still paid.
There is a special holding out as an agent rule where if the uploader was in fact a Disney employee and stated that they acting on the behalf of Disney give you this right. That could get the distributor out of trouble a few times, but on an industrial scale the distributor would lose reasonable tests which are the tests made at the civil court level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They want other people's information to be free for them. I doubt very much that they want their professional work to be free to other people. It takes a certain kind of insanity to think that it's feasible to spend millions of dollars writing software when your customers are all entitled to take it for free.
I’ve heard an argument that people / companies would still pay for custom development, like they do now. It is a pretty weak argument, but I do see the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we know when Honey started stealing affiliate links? Was it after the acquisition?
Before, this is how ALL coupon sites/extensions have worked for decades. I'm frankly baffled it weren't more common knowledge, despite being common sense, before the MegaLag video. Did people really think that sites like retailmenot.com or wethrift.com make you open tabs to the shop you're searching for coupons for before you can see the coupon code just for fun?? Affiliate code stuffing is the coupon provider busine…
I think the last time I actively investigated how to save pennies with these online coupon things was the 90s when I was a teenager and I suppose that's true for more people.
[flagged]
> They're not stealing, they're disrespecting a license. Breaking into someone's car and riding off isn't stealing, just disrespecting the concept of ownership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the correction. This points to one area of Apple's use of GPL code. Apple doesn't want code licensed under GPL v3+ so they're sticking with the GPL v2 codebase (and custom-backporting bugfixes?). Apple uses Bash v3.2, GNU Bash is at v5.2.
Apple doesn’t have bash as their default anymore, it’s been zsh for years. I presume they keep a bash around due to how ubiquitous it is for scripting.
GCC was replaced with LLVM in Xcode 4.2, and GDB was replaced with LLDB in Xcode 4.5 and GDB removed in Xcode 5.0. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode