[Dylan16807]

> as I watched the video all I could think was "what the fuck did you think they were doing?".

Well, not screwing over their partners and customers?

They didn't have to overwrite existing affiliate codes to make lots of money. And the stuff you list in your last sentence is a really big deal.

[Xelynega]

This is how I keep seeing the discussion going:

1: Honey is doing shady stuff with affiliate links

2: Affiliate links aren't shady, just the stuff they're doing with them

1: So honey is doing shady stuff with affiliate links

[Alex-Programs]

Yeah, you're right about them not having to rewrite existing ones. They could've only inserted affiliate codes when there weren't existing ones.

It's less that I think it's OK, more that I'm unsurprised.

[boneitis]

> more that I'm unsurprised

Bingo.

You want to stick your lawyers on them and try to punish them and extract as much money as you can out of them? Fine. Whatever.

>> not screwing over their partners and customers?

I wasn't around to organically take in this situation, but being introduced to Honey by seeing this blow up today, I can only say: "...no? I don't think so?"

Take, for example, the wild west days of rampant SEO exploitation (I'm talking like 2000s or 2010s era) and its race to the bottom, and Google's subsequent refinement of the SEO program over the years. Why am I supposed to root for one side over the other, again?

Their bottom line purpose is the revenue stream; this is not a FOSS project that does so much as to not even solicit donations.

--

I hope the top thread writer from that HN discussion five years ago is having a field day dancing on top of his I-told-you-so mountain :)

[kristofferR]

No, cross site cookie reading were banned for a reason. A site can only read its own cookies now.

[Dylan16807]

It's a browser extension. It can check the current state of the store page.