Then it remains to be proven that it is illegal to poach affiliate links like that. Because Honey says they just follow strictly the "last click" rule that is common practice in the field.
It's bullshit but if that bullshit rule is indeed the standard practice then it will be hard to fight.
That's the thing PayPal Honey is saying they are respecting the "last click" rule and in their eyes there is nothing illegal in that.
Even if the creator as nothing to do with honey they are saying the last click is in honey just before checkout so they get the money. I understand this is a terrible excuse but it seems that's the defense they will follow. Basically they are hiding behind that stupid last click rule and using it to justify it's perfectly legal.
Basically Honey says "we just strictly comply to a standard practice in affiliate links".
This user has only one post.
It is spam.
Honey has in its terms of services that you accept not to take part in a class action lawsuit and favor arbitration. It seems like these kind of clause is enforceable usually so I'm curious to see how Legal Eagle will navigate the issue.
Edit: Either the creators sue Honey and they will argue it is not illegal to poach affiliate links because they follow the "last click" rule that is standard (it's just that they pushed it to the extreme).
Or its the users that are scammed because they were told the best coupon would be used. But if it's the users, they are under the EULA and should have to comply with the no class action rule.
I'm not a lawyer but this is how I understand the setup for this trial to be.
Are they modifying URLs?
As far as I know they steal cookies but don't change the URL.
Also, I think the bizarre market practice of "last click takes attribution" seems to be also common in EU.
Unfortunately just because it's shady doesn't make it immediately illegal even here in EU.
And the response from PayPal Honey shows they want to fight it in court. Which don't think they would do if they thought it would have been considered highly illegal.
They found a loophole and abused it to steal creators (and users).
https://lemmy.world/post/23921992
Reuters is using the same kind of title.
Are they trying to say that Musk is the main worker at Starlink too?
OK thanks for the clarification.
I think it's very easy to find an "unusual" way to write something in any article as any author kind of has his own way to write but I understand what you mean.
Also my English is probably lacking in not being able to see that kind of nuance or what is really unusual.
I just thought that was the most straightforward way to convey that SpaceX is owned by Musk. Now the relevancy of this information in this article is another debate.
I thought Musk just spent a lot of his money on that business to own it and that it doesn't imply that he was taking part of engineering. I read Musk's bio a long time ago and my understanding was that he made much of his initial money through PayPal and then just bought businesses to add to his portfolio.
Also I would like to point out that even someone completely evil and with bad intentions can totally buy the right business and see it grow. So in now way I'm congratulating Musk or assuming he is the reason this business was successful. Trump had many very bad investments but still remained rich and powerful so it's not like there is a direct correlation of the two.
So Musk might be a total asshole, he is still the owner of SpaceX:
Elon Musk's SpaceX
I think it's the wall of text that made your post look suspicious. So people downvoted it and now it doesn't have any traction.
I watched the vid and there isn't really anything controversial in it but I will note that I couldn't find any link to the related scientific report Anton mentions in his video.
It's an interesting topic I didn't even know existed and even though YT titles are always clickbaity the content of the video is not really saying that this is an imminent threat but something to be cautious about.
OP says it's weird. I'm saying this might be unusual but doesn't really show any intent from the author beside saying Elon Musk owns spaceX.
I don't quite understand if OP thinks there is ulterior motive and if so what is it?
Elon Musk's spaceX seems like a neutral and factual way to present this information.
But I guess I will never know why this is weird. Nevermind.
I was searching a bit about the subject and I think it's a fairly legitimate concern.
Basically, life was always oriented one way on earth and some scientists are creating that mirror life.
But also this kind of research is important because it would give us a better understanding on life origin and maybe extraterrestrial life.
So at the very least I wouldn't say it's yet another conspiracy theory or dramatized news.
As mentioned by ChatGPT (so be cautious with that assertion) even if we created this kind of mirror life it would probably die quickly without the "mirror nutrients" existing anywhere?
I didn't watch that video yet but Anton Petrov is a fairly reputable science commenter.
Again, I only did a quick pre-research before diving more in the subject. Do your own research.
I would argue they don't usually say it that way for Musk either so that's why I asked what your point was.
Also, I would appreciate not being downvoted because people assume I'm pro Musk. I'm not. I just try to understand why this sentence would trigger a comment like yours.
Do you imply that this article's sentence was that way to promote Musk? I just thought that since Musk is a prominent personality that is constantly on the news anyway there is nothing really surprising in presenting SpaceX as his business. Especially when it is his business.
I don't think the case you consider as "legal precedent" is as relevant as you think.
But I guess we will see.