Netscape is suing PayPal?
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
364 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
60532 readers
5465 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I read that as “law slut”
18 U.S. Code § 351 always gets me going
LTT fans are in complete meltdown over big mean steve pointing out that Linus seemingly discovered this and stayed completely quiet about it.
Linus seems to had a big hissy fit about the whole subject of Honey on his WAN show, too.
WAN show is like 33% Linus whining about any actual or perceived slight against him for like over a year now. It's getting so annoying.
I tend to agree that they should have spoken up. Even if just for the damn clicks and views.
If you're no longer doing business with them, why not be vocal about why? If there's a legitimate reason, it tells other partners where your line is so they know whether you're a good fit for them. Don't bad mouth them, but explain the facts and encourage viewers and other YouTubers to avoid them for the stated reasons.
I honestly don't see what's wrong with that. Steve from GN has done much worse and still gets sponsors, so it really can't be that.
But they did state the reasons, on their forums. At the time it was only known Honey steals money from affiliate link owners, not from users, and presumably it worked correctly for users.
So what do you think would happen if they encouraged viewers not to use it? "Hey we know this extension makes you money, but please don't use it because we, millionaire YouTubers, are getting smaller profits when your do, and our profits are more important than your savings". They checked with other creators, most of YouTube stopped promoting it at the time, and that was it. It would be seen as very self-serving to complain about it to users/viewers.
It turns out, people care about supporting channels they watch a lot. In fact, I go out of my way to use affiliate links if they helped me decide with their review.
All they need to say is "Honey strips our affiliate links, so I'd appreciate if you don't use that extension," and provide some evidence. It doesn't even need a full video, maybe use it as a segway into a sponsor that does honor referal URLs.
If users know Honey is messing with URLs for their own benefit, maybe they'll look for an alternative.
I mean, the information was published. People could have shared it more if they cared. Most users don't. Just look at the backlash he got for comparing ad block's impact to that of piracy. I still see people citing that as a reason not to trust LMG. If people are that offended by being asked to consider the effects they have on creator income, you really think they'd react well to being told their discounts are hurting creators. They're already seen as whiney, pro-corporate shills. They're not going to go out of their way to shout from the rooftops criticism for a company that helps consumers (or was thought to at the time).
Edit: to be clear, I'm not a fan of LTT, but if you're going to criticize them, do it for their bias, factual errors, personality, ect. Not because they didn't go far enough to discourage using coupon codes.
Linus posted about it on the forum, and everything he said on the WAN show is correct if you actually watch the full clip instead of what GN edited it to say
While I think Linus can be way too whiny at times. I think he handled the situation well if everything stated is true. He made it clear on his forum that they terminated the partnership/sponsorship. He could have made a 'more public statement (e.g., a video on ltt)' but as he stated, viewers probably would have raked him over the coals for doing so. It likely would have been perceived as 'oh no! Honey stole money from me but gave you a discount. Woe is me.'
He still is too whiny as of the last few years but as a small business (very small; ~20 employees) owner myself, I kind of get it. I go out of my way to try to give my employees the best possible experience but sometimes people think I'm just taking advantage of them (despite me paying my full-time employees 1.5x my pre-tax take home rate). So I kind of get why he acts that way at times. Now, I don't condone it, but I understand.
Edit I love what Steve from GN is doing. I reported the honey extension when this news initially came out. I have supported all his pro consumer reports/actions.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Tech Jesus strikes again!
Prepare for his cumming
At this rate Steve is going to end up offed or cancelled in some kind of way, he keeps digging deeper.
load more comments
(19 replies)
LegalEagle and Wendover Productions actually beat them to the punch (Nebula) on this. They filed on 29th December 2024, a whole 4 days earlier.
And since the US courts charge money to get these documents, I downloaded a copy of the complaint earlier on my PACER account so anyone who's interested can read it without incurring the stupid fees. Enjoy
Edit: Devin Stone (the host of LegalEagle) is actually a lawyer on this case. His name and his law firm are listed as a lawyer for the plaintiff on the complaint.
Jesus, spelling mistake in the first sentence of the complaint. Fire the legal aide.
What's the spelling mistake? I didn't see it.
Plaintiffs are content created
Should probably be "creators"
I see. That's not technically the first sentence though. I stopped looking once I got to line 6.
Page 2, line 8: "Plaintiffs are content created..."
Presumably it should be content creators, not created
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›