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

421–430 of 469 posts

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

#421

Post by maratc »

zer00eyz wrote: post #146
Suppafly wrote: post #22

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.

To me, the whole affiliate marketing with behind-the-back deals and kickbacks just reeks of corruption. We have made the kickbacks illegal for public servants ... why all the rest are fine?

The money that "the creators" and Honey are in disagreement over to whom it belongs, should have never left the consumers' pockets to begin with.

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

#422

Post by mainframed »

loeg wrote: post #416
mainframed wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Got it. Next time, I'll leave probably false legal advice unchallenged.

It's fine and good to disagree with/challenge wrong comments. But you don't need to do this meta commentary cautioning the mere act of commenting. If Sephr is wrong, just say that!

Ok. You are right. I think he is likely wrong, but I'm not a lawyer either. Just someone who researched this a lot for my own projects/company.

If that was true, all user-side aggregations would be considered as separate projects.

I think it might be possible to circumvent the GPL license, when the URL to the list would be user-configurable and the program also worked without the list.

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

#423

Post by finnthehuman »

al_borland wrote: post #405
pseudo0 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pretty funny how the MegaLag video claimed it was hard to find discussion of this online, and cited a HN thread from over five years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21588663 I suppose it's easy for us to forget how an average person really doesn't think about how cookies and referral links work.

Not even just questioning how referral links work, but questioning how a company makes money. I never looked into Honey, but since it wasn't obvious how they were making their money, I assumed it was something sketchy and stayed away from it. My assumption was it was the typical data harvesting and selling (once they had the extension in your browser they could track you). While I think the tracking/selling is immora…

> I'm pretty surprised that so many YouTube creators pushed Honey without questioning how they were making money off giving away discounts.

The only thing you can know for sure about an actor, is that their profession is pretending to be something they're not.

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

#424

Post by kelseydh »

maratc wrote: post #389
kelseydh wrote: post #363

Google removed chrome extensions that do cookie stuffing before: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-removes-two-chrome-ad-b... PayPal's Honey extension should be pulled by Google for doing the exact same thing. There is no difference and Honey shouldn't get special treatment just because it's owned by PayPal. --- UPDATE: It's criminal wire fraud. Brian Dunning sentenced to 18 months jail for cookie stuffing: https:…

Are you a lawyer? Asking because "cookie stuffing" (which is indeed criminal) refers to the practice of setting a ton of referral cookies for the sites the browser had no intention of visiting, just for the case it will visit them some time in the future. In my understanding it does not refer to setting a cookie for the site the browser is currently on.

Cookie stuffing is criminal fraud because the offender is receiving commissions for sales they did not generate, thus defrauding legitimate advertisers and companies paying for the advertising.

Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud.

Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension for sales it did not generate. They are representing themselves as the one who made the referral, and receiving commissions for doing so, when they did not.

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

#425

Post by kelseydh »

braiamp wrote: post #397
maratc wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is he suing for class action on the claims of cookie stuffing ? I haven't found the actual case in either link (the second one is for "creators" only), so I can't get the answer myself.

No, he's claiming breach of contract and unfair practices. Cooking stuffing is just a customer issue, not a partner one. He would have no standing on that front.

The actual lawsuit does mention the cookie practices, it's the core of their class action.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.44...

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

#426

Post by kelseydh »

seanalltogether wrote: post #400
maratc wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is he suing for class action on the claims of cookie stuffing ? I haven't found the actual case in either link (the second one is for "creators" only), so I can't get the answer myself.

My understanding from comments on reddit is that part of the suit relies on tortious interference, basically that honey is damaging the relationships between content creators and vendors by masking the source of referrals and therefore making the vendor believe that the content creator is under-performing in their contract.

More to it than that, alleging unjust enrichment among things in the latest amended filing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.44...

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

#427

Post by somat »

kube-system wrote: post #289
somat wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right, infringement is not theft, and corporations are not people. Corporations are governments. The corporation you probably thinking of right now is a small private government to run a for profit endeavor. But note that cities are also corporations.

Corporations are not 'people' as in 'natural persons', but they are 'persons', as in 'juridical person' -- as are trusts, estates, and other institutions.

Trusts etc. are mechanisms to move inheritance from personal law into corporate law. This lets you game the system as corporate privilege often handles this more gracefully than personal privilege(wills and inheritance).

Probably want to contact a lawyer for the nuances, but the thousand foot view is you create a corporation with yourself as chief officer, and others as backup officers. set your corporate law to make your backup officers useless until the death of the chief officer and strict guidelines as to how the backup officers are to manage corporate assets. then finally transfer assets to the corporation.

The point being, the thing that makes a corporation a corporation is its corporate law governing its members, thus the assertion that corporations are not people, they are governments.

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

#428

Post by hotdogbaines »

kelseydh wrote: post #374

Snopes looking real silly for this 2018 fact check: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/honey-browser-extension/

looks like they did a new piece about it: https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/12/30/honey-browser-extensi...

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

#429

Post by maratc »

kelseydh wrote: post #424
maratc wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a lawyer? Asking because "cookie stuffing" (which is indeed criminal) refers to the practice of setting a ton of referral cookies for the sites the browser had no intention of visiting, just for the case it will visit them some time in the future. In my understanding it does not refer to setting a cookie for the site the browser is currently on.

Cookie stuffing is criminal fraud because the offender is receiving commissions for sales they did not generate, thus defrauding legitimate advertisers and companies paying for the advertising. Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud. Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension for sales it did not generate. They are representing themselves as the on…

> Cookie stuffing is criminal fraud

There is no disagreement about that. Murder is also criminal. The disagreement is whether what Honey did classifies as "cookie stuffing". (I hope there is no disagreement that it does not qualify as murder, which is a different crime.)

> Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud.

This is ... not the definition of what "wire fraud" is, but let's leave it aside as it's irrelevant to this discussion.

> Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension

I have not seen any evidence that Honey's extension stuffs more than one cookie for any given transaction. In my understanding "cookie stuffing" refers to a practice of stuffing a ton of cookies for one transaction, not to a practice of "stuffing" one cookie for multiple transactions. Moreover, "cookie stuffing" is not a result of "stuffing" a "cookie", just like "guinea pig" is not a "pig" and it didn't come from a place known as "Guinea". "Cookie stuffing" is a specific legal term describing a certain well-defined behavior, and it would be inaccurate to apply it to anything that involves "cookies" and "stuffing". In other words, if I put some jelly inside an Oreo, this would not qualify as "criminal fraud" known as "cookie stuffing", even though it can be said that by doing that I'm "stuffing" (putting "stuff") inside a "cookie" (Oreo). That's why I asked if you're a lawyer -- they usually understand that e.g. "wire fraud" could be done without any "wire", for instance completely wirelessly -- or that someone committing a "regular" fraud while holding a pack of wire in their hand does not commit "wire fraud".

P.S. The search for "stuffing" in the filing you attached brings no results, so I assume the lawyers also don't argue that Honey engaged in "cookie stuffing" (which is criminal).

Post reply on HN