• thesmokingman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    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.

    • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      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.

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        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.