“The biggest scam in YouTube history”

  • simple@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    Hell yeah. Huge respect to him and the other youtuber that exposed this, it’s crazy that Honey just pocketing most of the referral money has been undiscovered for so many years.

    • bizarroland@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      I can see how it happens though.

      No one was doing any oversight on their practices. If you were running a referral affiliate link system, it must have seemed like honey was doing a really good job bringing customers to you.

      I’m just kind of disappointed that nobody inside the company ever spoke up or blew any whistles and said “Hey, this is at best unethical if not entirely illegal and either way exposes us to the risk of a massive lawsuit, maybe we should just actually do our jobs instead of stealing the work of other people.”

      • lobut@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        I dunno man, whistleblowers aren’t getting good treatment from what I see. Two got “suicided” last year from Boeing and OpenAI. The two Theranos whistleblowers were treated really poorly. I felt so bad for them. They’re doing talks on ethics and stuff and I only wish them the best. They stood their ground on what they believed in.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          Whistleblowers are always treated poorly because the people in charge never like being called out for their crimes. That’s why you’ve got to have an exit strategy, like Snowden.

          • Gloria@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            14 days ago

            I can see how nobody blew the whistle, leave his cushy job, prepare for 3-5 years of juristical drama exposing your name and image only to spend the rest of your live living in check notes… Russia.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 days ago

              Obligatory reminder that Snowden intended to go to Ecuador and only got stuck in Russia because that’s where he was when the US revoked his passport.

              • Aqarius@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                14 days ago

                Another reminder that France, Spain, and Italy forced the Bolivian president’s plane to land in Austria because they thought Snowden was on it.

      • dukeofdummies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        I’m not. What do you get as a reward for blowing the whistle? Genuinely?

        1. There’s no bounty, even if there was you wouldn’t get it for at least a year after you blow the whistle.

        2. Once it’s discovered it’s you, you’re fired. There goes your paycheck, your health insurance. Now your home is in jeopardy and you have no decent income verification to get a new one.

        3. Good luck working in any job even remotely related to what you know. You now have a stigma in any background check and while a privately owned mom & pop might look at you favorably, there ain’t a single corporation who will take pride in hiring you. You’re risky.

        The most ethical person, is one with no debt, who owns their home, and has 8 months expenses saved up. That’s not most Americans right now.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          This is also why there was such coordinated effort to shut down wikileaks, or to at least stall out the cultural movement that was building behind it.

          If you give people a methodology to whistleblow that at least on paper allows them to stay anonymous and avoid putting their life/livelyhood/survival in jeapordy, that removes one of the biggest disincentives.

        • falidorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          What do ethics have to do with saving money and owning property? Do poor people not have ethics?

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        I don’t get how anyone thought they would work. If your color blind they obviously don’t magically alter the receptors in your eyes.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          If selling false hope wasn’t profitable, there would be a lot of companies (and religions) go out of business.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      There is a YouTube video that literaly said they were scamming from 2020.

      Linus tech tips figure it out a year back and stop shilling it once they figured it out but for some reason didn’t make a video about it?

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        They didn’t make a video about it because they thought it was a problem for creators, not a problem for consumers. They may have communicated to creators separately to drop honey. They talked about it publicly once they found out honey was also lying to consumers about what they did.

        • DasAlbatross@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          They didn’t say anything because they’re not pro consumer, they’re pro linus media group. They didn’t want to appear to be unfriendly to advertisers. There’s a reason tech jesus was able to do a big expose on how crap their videos are. They want to churn out content and make money. Being seen as a problematic channel for advertisers doesn’t help that.

      • renzev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        They don’t do it any more. Source: just checked.

        Interesting how brave stills gets dragged through the mud for this, meanwhile firefox gets to walk free about the looking glass fiasco.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          You probably can’t definitively say they don’t just by isolated checking. There could be a lot at play here. Maybe they turned it off while the heat is on, maybe whatever affiliate you were looking at didn’t actually have a matching affiliate link on their side. Maybe there’s an a/b test where they only jack a certain percentage.

          When Linus Tech Tips first took them out as a sponsor they didn’t appear to be jacking then either. But it would be very simple to build a system that turned link jacking off for certain users or during certain times or at certain thresholds.

          Brave got caught doing it, and then stopped because the backlash was going to be worse than the advantage. Brave still had plenty of other ways to make money via search, selling advertising and BAT. I honestly don’t fault brave for trying that because they are funding significant development to block ads.

          Honey’s base business model probably falls apart without some linkjacking. You go to a website to buy something and it says no no go buy it from these people instead. They’ve got to have it a lower price still have enough margin to sell it to you at that price, and pay honey for the redirection. It’s kind of a sales worst case dilemma.

          • zqps@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days ago

            Honey’s base business model probably falls apart without some linkjacking. You go to a website to buy something and it says no no go buy it from these people instead.

            That’s not what Honey does.

            • rumba@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              Additionally, the video asserts that Honey does not always find users the best discounts, either. Despite the browser extension’s past advertising, the video showed multiple examples of Honey not presenting the best coupon codes to the consumer. Further supporting this claim is wording from Honey’s FAQ page for partner businesses and its terms of use agreement. According to the FAQ page, any business that has an official partnership with Honey (in order to partner, a business must pay Honey a 3% commission) can add or remove codes from the platform. Additionally, the following paragraphs can be found within Honey’s terms of use agreement:

              While we try and find you the best available discounts and coupons, and to identify low prices, we may not always find you the best deal. PayPal is not responsible for any missed savings or rewards opportunities

  • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    Honey in the chrome webstore: 4.7 stars. With no clear way to see written reviews, just the aggregated stars are visible.

    Honey in the firefox add-ons store: 3.2 stars.

    Honey in Trustpilot: 2.7 stars. Closed for new reviews since 4 days, but old reviews and history are still accessible.

    Google manages to do worse than trustpilot. Google is once again confirming what a useless company they’ve become.

    • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      I don’t trust reviews at all at this point, from any service like those mentioned.

      I will say that it’s diabolical that trust pilot closed the reviews. Meaning people can’t express there disappointment with the app, and that people might still trust it.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        Now that AI can write reasonably good-sounding copy, reviews are increasingly unreliable.

  • VerPoilu@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    I’m struggling to understand how everyone thought Honey made money. I have assumed from the first time I saw an ad for them that this is how they operate. It’s not like it’s difficult to prove or disprove either.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      I’m so, so sick of these comments every time some shady shit is uncovered. “How could no one else see this, you’re all so stupid, I knew from the very first ad!”

      Yes yes, you’re mommy’s special little genius, despite conspicuously absent comments from that time…

      • cadekat@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        It wasn’t “uncovered” though. This is their business model. I’ve told every person I know using Honey for years that it’s a shady extension and they should stop using it. Unfortunately I don’t have a huge following to offset Honey’s massive ad spend.

        I’m not calling anyone stupid, but stop treating this like it’s new information. Your browser warned you this might happen when you installed the extension:

        • Empricorn@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          Lol, “access your data” is a little different from “overwrite cookies, now sending all promised creator revenue to Honey”. Also, it found discounts, but stores had full control over how much, and even if it didn’t give you a discount, it still claimed all referral revenue… Don’t act like that was all obvious, intuitive, and known by you, it wasn’t.

          • cadekat@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            I’m not claiming that it was “intuitive”, just that the browser did tell the user exactly what the add-on was allowed to do. Sure, Chrome and Firefox deserve some blame for not making the warning more explicit/dire, but they did make an attempt. Overwriting cookies and rewriting affiliate links are subsets of “access your data”.

            Also, I’m not claiming that I knew exactly what Honey was doing, just that I suspected it was shady and recommended no one use it.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Using browser exploits to steal commissions from affiliate links without even the user knowing. Let’s say you follow an affiliate link to a product and you go to checkout. When Honey pops up and tells you either that it found you a discount (or even if it pops up to tell you it didn’t find you anything) it secretly opens a new tab to the page which replaces the cookie in the browser that contains the code that identifies who to give the commission to. Instead of the person who gave you the link getting their commission, Honey gets it instead.

      Then if you used PayPal checkout, they would also “find” you discounts but swap them out with lower ones and pocket the difference. For example you buy something for $10 and they find a 30% off coupon, but tell you it’s a 10% off coupon. You go to checkout with PayPal and they charge your card $9 but only pay the merchant $7 and pocket the other $2.

  • paraphrand@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    When MKB commented on the situation, he avoided dropping the name PayPal. Seemingly on purpose. Just in case it would help him in the future.

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        I dunno what it is, and I’m not saying the person you’re replying to is doing this, but tons of people seem to throw shade at MKB. Like they think he’s being sneaky or is in any way untrustworthy. All I’ve ever seen the guy do is be honest with his opinions. Yes, he is generally a very tech-positive guy. But he’s not afraid to explain in detail why he thinks a product sucks.

          • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            I’m a big fan of right to repair and I appreciate all Louis Rossmann has done for the movement. Having said that, I wouldn’t say he’s strictly a pro-consumer guy. He’s a professional gadfly.

            • DasAlbatross@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              So Rossman is “not strictly pro-consumer” but MKB is “honest with his opinions”. Up is down too, I guess.

              • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                14 days ago

                Both guys are in the business of self-promotion. One is based on positivity, the other negativity.

                You want to fill your life with negativity? Go ahead. I’ll pass.

                • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  You’re missing one key difference:

                  MKB is getting the big money for just mindelessly repeating whatever big tech wants the audience to hear, Louis is somehow financially surviving despite not having any sponsors for obvious reasons (and not wanting them either for integrity reasons).

                  And saying louis rossmann is about self promotion… I’ve lost count how often he’s openly wondering in videos why people are still watching his crap. He’s happy he can do what he’s doing, and he can make the difference he’s making, but to say he’s in the business of self promoting… i guess as a youtuber, you always are in some way, but he’d be happy if he’d run out of content and have nothing to complain about, and could do actual repairs that then aren’t being blocked by stupid companies. I doubt MKB would be happy when he’d no longer be an influencer.