• NotNotMike@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m glad this information is coming to light because I think that it should be fixed, at least as far as the affiliate link piece goes, but I find myself irritated by the sensationalism of the poster.

    They’re really pushing to make this seem as evil as possible, and milking it for every drop it’s worth. Making this a two-part series and not exposing it immediately feels super shitty to me.

    Just post the full information you have, if this is really so bad, stop trying to farm clips.

    Also, not enough focus on the timeline. Honey’s business model has changed dramatically since it was released long ago, and I feel like the part two video is going to complain about the original Honey business model, which was literally just a coupon code aggregator, just based on the “cliffhanger” at the end

    • Imhotep@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      it should be fixed

      It’s not a mistake, but an incredibly unethical business model. Why minimize the issue?

      not exposing it immediately feels super shitty to me

      it doesn’t change anything to the facts though

      It’s serialization, as old as printed news. You can dislike that but it’s not like he’s the only one doing it

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      If you look at their history, they seem to be a younger YouTube channel. I think he’s breaking it up more so that he can actually put out one video a month and not lose subscribers. He seems to be slowly managing to make the videos longer each month.

      • NotNotMike@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I suspected it was a smaller channel, but didn’t look myself. I haven’t heard of them up until this point so this story could be a particularly big opportunity for them, so it makes sense why they are choosing the delivery method that they are

    • freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The dude spent a year figuring this out, researching and getting all his ducks in a row. What did you do, whats your contribution? Oh, let’s see, you bravely complained in a comments section about the way he chose to release the info, accusing him of the crime of sensationalism for clicks.

      Gee, why would he want to get paid for his work?? HOW SELFISH! It’s not like there are companies out there trying to steal content creator revenue, right??

      The way you complain more about him than the company, makes me wonder, do you work for Paypal, or that new project, Pie? Just weird to see you trying to make him look bad for wanting to get paid for his work. Sounds like a Honey thing to do.

      • NotNotMike@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        My guy take it down a notch, damn. I’m not calling for his head on a pike, I have legitimate and valid criticisms. I apologize if the tone came off more critical than I meant it but hot hell you came in spicy.

        But, to address your issue:

        Why does one wrong make a right? Why does him exposing the issue invalidate any criticisms or expectations of quality or integrity? To me it does not, hence why I criticize. And I even said I was glad the information is coming to light, and I’m grateful for him drawing attention to it, I just wish it could have been done a little more tactfully is all. I would like to have all the information right now, rather than waiting for a “part 2”.

        I also just don’t appreciate the stoking of anger, which has clearly worked. Ragebait is toxic and that’s what is being done with this story, from my perspective, so I don’t love it.