Talk:PayPal Honey: Difference between revisions
Add topicNo edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Looks like that was added. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | Looks like that was added. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
Legal Eagle also submitted a lawsuit against honey | |||
==New Insight and Findings + technical details== | |||
MegaLag released two new videos, one on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwB3FmbcC88 22nd Dec 2025] and one today ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCGT_CKGgFE 30th Dec 2025]) giving much more detail about how honey was designed to purposely avoid detection and fraud other affiliate networks as well as their users. But this is rather technical. Would it be appropriate to dive into those details in the CRW article or should this be kept more general? [[User:Eck|Eck]] ([[User talk:Eck|talk]]) 22:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I updated the article and stuck to a general outline. As much as the technical details ''are'' important, going into the weeds would do the main article no favors when we're aiming for a general audience. The "Incidents" section itself needs some trimming as it is, if someone wants tackle creating a separate article for a deeper dive into the overall controversy. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 23:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:41, 14 January 2026
Since the honey debacle and PayPal itself are two separate entities, even though they’re owned by the same company, should there be a separate page for PayPal itself since it has other problems and then a separate page for honey? - Atsumari (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like that was added. - Atsumari (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Legal Eagle also submitted a lawsuit against honey
New Insight and Findings + technical details
[edit source]MegaLag released two new videos, one on 22nd Dec 2025 and one today (30th Dec 2025) giving much more detail about how honey was designed to purposely avoid detection and fraud other affiliate networks as well as their users. But this is rather technical. Would it be appropriate to dive into those details in the CRW article or should this be kept more general? Eck (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I updated the article and stuck to a general outline. As much as the technical details are important, going into the weeds would do the main article no favors when we're aiming for a general audience. The "Incidents" section itself needs some trimming as it is, if someone wants tackle creating a separate article for a deeper dive into the overall controversy. — Sojourna (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)