321–330 of 469 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "the" commons but it sure looks like "a" commons to me.
In the accurate historical sense of the term, yes. In the much more currently commonplace use of the term as "a bunch of resources that people can just use", no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Why would they want to pay Honey any money when Honey doesn’t originate any traffi? Paying Honey means you can limit the discounts available through Honey, sort of like a shitty protection scheme. Because Honey bills itself to the consumer as the be-all-end-all coupon and discount app and advertises itself as "we know ALL the coupon codes and discounts", a consumer with the Honey extension will likely not look outs…
But the merchant controls the discounts, if they want to stop spreading higher discount codes they can do it any time.
If I had an affiliate program, I would not allow Honey on my platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
100% this. Until there is a mechanism to disambiguate between first and last click referrals, it will continue to be an issue.
Perhaps they've guessed that it would shock some people to learn how often they inadvertently use affiliate links and they would be discouraged from shopping or find some way to disable the codes.
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.
Copyright infringement may be criminal. But compared with theft there’s, rightly, a higher standard of proof required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; the fact that it uses copyright to achieve that is just an implementation detail. > If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft No, this is absolutely incorrect. GPL requires copyright (or similar mechanism) to function. Without copyright, anyone could take the GPL'd code and release a compiled…
The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software. No need for copyright or anything remotely similar. Code being copyrightable would just be getting in the way at that point. But in a world where that is politically infeasible, we have to use whatever tools we have at hand to get as close as we can. And, unfortunately, the tool we happen to have is the modern c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with that ideal I’m not sure how realistic it is. Trump was elected on a populist platform and quickly betrayed his base again, this time before he has even taken office. What are people to do, vote harder? It’s not like Kamala would have fixed this either. If Kamala had a better chance of winning the ‘Tech Titans’ wouldn’t have switched teams. They would have done anything the government asked for so l…
Kamala offered a significantly more honest campaign, and would not have been openly corrupt. It's a giant chasm of difference between her and Trump. Just because she isn't perfect and wouldn't be all powerful doesn't mean both options were the same. Owners of platforms can be held accountable, especially if they're turning a blind eye. Disabling message history won't save Google or anyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does and yet this seems to highly simplifying things. Consider the US scoped studies studies showing that the population doesn't get what it wants. They showed that policy follows the whims of the wealthy even in the cases where the population overwhelmingly agrees on a contrary direction. So the data says "no", control has been removed from us. Part of the complication is that the determined action of a few actor…
It's not too late. We've overcome the rich before and can again.
If piracy isn't 'stealing' neither is this, since the original code is still available.
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…