At this rate Steve is going to end up offed or cancelled in some kind of way, he keeps digging deeper.
They are running a drama/scandal focussed channel. Of course they are going to be controversial at times.
investigative journalism is drama now 👍
The way they are phrasing things is very sensationalist. They are very much not doing dry, factual content. This probably is required to make a profit, but too me is still drama.
Not really. Reviews and weekly news are still their bread and butter. They do a few of these deep dive investigations per year.
And they do very detailed reviews.
They seem to be doing far more of them lately.
Yeah, it seems to be a personal mission for Steve, and he seems to be going a bit harder on them as well. I remember the fan controller fire risk thing was like 2-3 videos, each about 10-20 min, whereas recent “investigative journalism” pieces are more like 1-1.5 hours, and the details seem a bit more spread out.
I appreciate what he’s doing, I just wish it was a little less dramatic, but I guess that sells clicks and views.
Companies are going to shit more quickly these days
Your being downvoted because they cannot handle the truth.
Meh. I don’t care about youtube personalities losing money when they all collectively contributed to lowering our standards and making us accept a ‘new normal’ of ads in videos.
spits
Make sure you download the SponsorBlock browser addon. It automatically skips over sponsored ads in the middle of youtube videos.
SponsorBlock generaly sucks, I can do it manually
It usually works great for me (and when it doesn’t - I help), but it obviously doesn’t work on downloads so I still have to skip some ads manually.
No it doesn’t.
No shit, i didn’t say it sucks for you.
I can tell you’re mad because I dared to challenge those who have lowered our standards.
What 💀
You’ll understand when you’re older, hopefully.
John I’m not 8 years old, you’re just not making sense.
I used the one included with vanced for a while until I noticed that it was skipping stuff in the video when they were talking about the product the video was about. Not all the time and it could have just been their implementation of it but it put me off using it.
Then you configured it too aggressively. You can select what it should skip
I read that as “law slut”
Shit’s getting real in Honey’s legal department.
If you haven’t seen it yes, check out this investigation on Honey (20 minutes, Part 1):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vc4yL3YTwWk
It’s fascinating stuff. Open fraud.
I can’t speak for formal legal matters (I am assuming such scams are nominally legal in the US), but it goes to show that senior PayPal executives are basically criminals. There is no way they didn’t know about this.
I mean, Paypal is a bank that isn’t beholden to all the normal bank regulations and customer protection rules due to technicalities. They have been caught effectively seizing customer funds through locking accounts for questionable reasons before, and offer no reasonable way of recovering funds from locked accounts. Numerous stories of people operating online etsy (and similar) storefronts getting accounts locked for vague claims they were actively money laundering, with no means for appeal.
Anyone just now becoming aware of the paypal execs’ corruption hasn’t been paying attention.
There’s a reason that a set of grifters who ran the place is nicknamed “The Paypal Mafia”.
I am genuinely concerned about this because Legal Eagle’s suit is directly tied to manipulating URLs and cookies. The suit, even with its focus on last click attribution, doesn’t make an incredibly specific argument. If Legal Eagle wins, this sets a very dangerous precedent for ad blockers being illegal because ad blockers directly manipulate cookies and URLs. I haven’t read the Gamer’s Nexus one yet.
Please note that I’m not trying to defend Honey at all. They’re actively misleading folks.
But adblockers don’t enable unlawful enrichment. Or do they?
Only paid ones. Theoretically could impact Brave, for instance.
That’s like saying bank robberies being illegal mean that going to the bank is illegal.
Honey is unlawful because of what they DO by changing those URLs and cookies, e.g enriching themselves at the expense of creators.
Your analogy doesn’t work at all.
If one of the core harms is the removal of income and tracking, ad blockers fall into this category. Ad blockers very explicitly remove these things. The harm is not “Honey stole my income” it’s “Honey removed my tracking and Honey added their tracking.” Read the Legal Eagle case.
I have read the case.
I don’t enrich myself by using an adblocker. And I certainly don’t enrich myself at other’s expense.
and Honey added their tracking.”
The key point they were making is that uBO isn’t adding their own affiliate links and stealing revenue they haven’t earned, unlike Paypal.
It could never apply to ad blockers. You install an ad blocker knowing that it will block stuff… and explicitly WANTING it to do so.
Nobody installed honey knowing that it was manipulating cookies and stuff. The normal layperson who installs it will just think “It’s just chucking in coupon codes into that box!”…
One is predicated on a lie of omission… the other is literally what the user wants. There’s a huge difference…
You’re looking at it from an end user perspective. “I want it to do this, so it’s ok” for an ad blocker, but “I didn’t know it was doing this so it’s bad” for Honey.
But the LE/GN cases are that Honey changed URLs and cost them the sale revenue, no? That’s not the end user experience. Seems like that could easily be pivoted to a website who claims lost revenue was stolen from them because ad blockers are manipulating their site/URLs, end users’ desires be damned.
But the LE/GN cases are that Honey changed URLs and cost them the sale revenue, no?
https://www.cpmlegal.com/assets/htmldocuments/GamersNexus v. Paypal.pdf
a. Nationwide Class: All persons and entities in the United States who participated in an affiliate commission program with a United States eCommerce merchant and had commissions diverted to PayPal as a result of Honey.
So yes, they’re suing on behalf of creators.
But they’re using logic of what is promised/advertised to users… alongside the creator side of it all.
- Consumers download the PayPal Honey browser extension under the promise that Honey will search the web for the best coupons to ensure consumers pay the lowest prices when checking out with eCommerce merchants […] After this affiliate network partnership is established, on information and belief, Honey deliberately withholds higher-value coupons, directly contradicting Honey’s promise to consumers.
Which we know is inaccurate at this point and honey is lying. Most of the rest will come out in discovery if Honey wants to fight it. And I think it’s safe to say that anything that comes out in discovery will simply hang honey even more than we already know.
It could never apply to ad blockers.
I mean it certainly could if it was deemed so broad as “Honey was manipulating affiliate links”, but I don’t think it would.
In a short 10-15 years we will see a resolution to this case and be able to have closure. A blink of a eye.
Netscape is suing PayPal?
Tech Jesus strikes again!
Prepare for his cumming
