this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
1039 points (97.4% liked)

You Should Know

33426 readers
862 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] notnotmike@programming.dev 42 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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 10 points 2 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 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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 3 points 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 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 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.