β² 1068 βΌ PayPal Honey steals affiliate links and lies about finding the best coupons (youtube.com) submitted 2 years ago* by HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world 211 comments fedilink hide all child comments π Fuck PayPal And fuck Linus Tech Tips for intentionally keeping quiet about this after they found out.
[β] TimeNaan@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (3 children) Linus Tech Tips really is scum. Yet more proof of that. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] theherk@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children) Same person that said ad blocking was the same as piracy. edit: People downvoting me like I disagreed with him. Just saying how he looks at it. I think itβs a bit of a false dichotomy but they are definitely similar. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [β] themakara@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Have you ever heard his full stance on the matter? Because he clearly stated that this is not a judgment against using it. Heck, he's been open about having sailed the high seas himself and still doing so for media he physically owns. It's just that gaining access to media while circumventing the payment (ads in this case) is basically piracy. Which is fair. Signed, A uBlock User permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I trust Linus is being sincere when he says "it's not a judgement" but blocking ads is being compared to a criminal doing copyright infringement (illegal). The word used is one originally meaning for a person murdering others on boats (immoral), and it's used because it's pejorative. It's unavoidably judgemental. permalink fedilink source parent [β] tabular@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If I hacked a server to get content then I would be circumventing payment at it shouldn't be up to me how it responds to requests, I don't own it. Google trying to enforce playing adverts via software running on my property is an unjust overreach. The user choosing what displays on their own monitor is not "circumvention", it's claiming ownership over your computing. Google could choose to verify on their servers if I've paid (in normal currency) but instead their servers act like adverts are an optional donation. permalink fedilink source parent [β] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml [S] -3 points 2 years ago How much you want to bet he uses Ad block himself but it's suddenly different when YOU do it on HIS content? permalink fedilink source parent [β] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Itβ¦is? Youβre copying digital content without paying for it. I use uBlock but I donβt pretend to have the moral high ground. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] sardaukar@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's... not? It's protection against malware and profiling by shady companies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago It can be both things at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is. Taking from a service without paying for it, and actively avoiding the service making money via advertising is basically the same as watching a film without paying for it. Both ways, you consumed a service and the people providing it got nothing, but it cost them something to create and provide it. permalink fedilink source parent [β] tabular@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* They are similar only if you presume there is an agreement of content in exchange for revenue from adverts. If you view the internet as a place for open collaboration, or oppose (internet) advertisement, then you wouldn't presume that agreement and it looks very different. permalink fedilink source parent [β] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 2 years ago OP isn't exactly giving you the full story there. I know for a fact I've seen a video on this. I remember thinking at the time "well duh". permalink fedilink source parent [β] galanthus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago It was a matter of time until the public found out about this. They couldn't think in the long term, by not accepting a bit of backlash, exposing the scam they unknowingly participated in they only opened themselves up for more later. They are not only evil, they are stupid too, which is worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] theherk@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children) Same person that said ad blocking was the same as piracy. edit: People downvoting me like I disagreed with him. Just saying how he looks at it. I think itβs a bit of a false dichotomy but they are definitely similar. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [β] themakara@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Have you ever heard his full stance on the matter? Because he clearly stated that this is not a judgment against using it. Heck, he's been open about having sailed the high seas himself and still doing so for media he physically owns. It's just that gaining access to media while circumventing the payment (ads in this case) is basically piracy. Which is fair. Signed, A uBlock User permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I trust Linus is being sincere when he says "it's not a judgement" but blocking ads is being compared to a criminal doing copyright infringement (illegal). The word used is one originally meaning for a person murdering others on boats (immoral), and it's used because it's pejorative. It's unavoidably judgemental. permalink fedilink source parent [β] tabular@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If I hacked a server to get content then I would be circumventing payment at it shouldn't be up to me how it responds to requests, I don't own it. Google trying to enforce playing adverts via software running on my property is an unjust overreach. The user choosing what displays on their own monitor is not "circumvention", it's claiming ownership over your computing. Google could choose to verify on their servers if I've paid (in normal currency) but instead their servers act like adverts are an optional donation. permalink fedilink source parent [β] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml [S] -3 points 2 years ago How much you want to bet he uses Ad block himself but it's suddenly different when YOU do it on HIS content? permalink fedilink source parent [β] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Itβ¦is? Youβre copying digital content without paying for it. I use uBlock but I donβt pretend to have the moral high ground. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] sardaukar@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's... not? It's protection against malware and profiling by shady companies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago It can be both things at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is. Taking from a service without paying for it, and actively avoiding the service making money via advertising is basically the same as watching a film without paying for it. Both ways, you consumed a service and the people providing it got nothing, but it cost them something to create and provide it. permalink fedilink source parent [β] tabular@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* They are similar only if you presume there is an agreement of content in exchange for revenue from adverts. If you view the internet as a place for open collaboration, or oppose (internet) advertisement, then you wouldn't presume that agreement and it looks very different. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] themakara@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Have you ever heard his full stance on the matter? Because he clearly stated that this is not a judgment against using it. Heck, he's been open about having sailed the high seas himself and still doing so for media he physically owns. It's just that gaining access to media while circumventing the payment (ads in this case) is basically piracy. Which is fair. Signed, A uBlock User permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I trust Linus is being sincere when he says "it's not a judgement" but blocking ads is being compared to a criminal doing copyright infringement (illegal). The word used is one originally meaning for a person murdering others on boats (immoral), and it's used because it's pejorative. It's unavoidably judgemental. permalink fedilink source parent [β] tabular@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If I hacked a server to get content then I would be circumventing payment at it shouldn't be up to me how it responds to requests, I don't own it. Google trying to enforce playing adverts via software running on my property is an unjust overreach. The user choosing what displays on their own monitor is not "circumvention", it's claiming ownership over your computing. Google could choose to verify on their servers if I've paid (in normal currency) but instead their servers act like adverts are an optional donation. permalink fedilink source parent [β] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml [S] -3 points 2 years ago How much you want to bet he uses Ad block himself but it's suddenly different when YOU do it on HIS content? permalink fedilink source parent
[β] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I trust Linus is being sincere when he says "it's not a judgement" but blocking ads is being compared to a criminal doing copyright infringement (illegal). The word used is one originally meaning for a person murdering others on boats (immoral), and it's used because it's pejorative. It's unavoidably judgemental. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] tabular@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If I hacked a server to get content then I would be circumventing payment at it shouldn't be up to me how it responds to requests, I don't own it. Google trying to enforce playing adverts via software running on my property is an unjust overreach. The user choosing what displays on their own monitor is not "circumvention", it's claiming ownership over your computing. Google could choose to verify on their servers if I've paid (in normal currency) but instead their servers act like adverts are an optional donation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml [S] -3 points 2 years ago How much you want to bet he uses Ad block himself but it's suddenly different when YOU do it on HIS content? permalink fedilink source parent
[β] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Itβ¦is? Youβre copying digital content without paying for it. I use uBlock but I donβt pretend to have the moral high ground. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] sardaukar@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's... not? It's protection against malware and profiling by shady companies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago It can be both things at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] sardaukar@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's... not? It's protection against malware and profiling by shady companies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago It can be both things at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago It can be both things at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is. Taking from a service without paying for it, and actively avoiding the service making money via advertising is basically the same as watching a film without paying for it. Both ways, you consumed a service and the people providing it got nothing, but it cost them something to create and provide it. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] tabular@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* They are similar only if you presume there is an agreement of content in exchange for revenue from adverts. If you view the internet as a place for open collaboration, or oppose (internet) advertisement, then you wouldn't presume that agreement and it looks very different. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 2 years ago OP isn't exactly giving you the full story there. I know for a fact I've seen a video on this. I remember thinking at the time "well duh". permalink fedilink source parent
[β] galanthus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago It was a matter of time until the public found out about this. They couldn't think in the long term, by not accepting a bit of backlash, exposing the scam they unknowingly participated in they only opened themselves up for more later. They are not only evil, they are stupid too, which is worse. permalink fedilink source parent