• TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    There is no reason why the complaint can’t be specific to modifying just attribution and commission cookies. And ad blockers mostly work by blackholing DNS request to ad servers and manually editing DOM and removing elements that load content from known ad services. If an ad blocking extension modifies cookies it’s typically just blocking them entirely (something every browser has built in) not editing them.

    • thesmokingman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I use uBlock Origin to remove tracking. I also manually remove tracking. Privacy Badger is a tool that works to explicitly do this kind of tidying.

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I think we can agree that modifying a cookie such as that Honey does to steal commissions and blocking a cookie in its entirety as a security or privacy measure are material different actions.

        So I find the concerns that Honey getting sued and having to pay damages could open up ad blockers to getting sued overblown.

        You can quantify damages equal to the amount of commissions paid on purchases actually made in Honey’s case (and on the consumer side with the difference in discounts provided by Honey withholding the best coupons it claims to provide)

        You can’t quantify damages made by blocking ads or tracking cookies as advertisement and tracking doesn’t directly translate to sales