this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

87627 readers
4166 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Never thought we'd be rooting on Big Porn to help save integrity of the internet, but I'm all for it. They brought us HD, 4K, VR, now let's go save the rest.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

The internet arguably exists as a mass phenomenon because of porn. They have their shit and unethical parts. But, on the internet tech side, almost all the good (and some of the bad) trends appeared on porn first.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And VCRs and modern streaming video players. Pornhub had better seeking, thumbnails, and the "people watched this part" graph before YouTube.

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

XHamster skipping the progress bar in favor of highlight thumbnails really wants to rub our nose into the little sleazy pervs we are.

"I know I'm looking for 'bad dragon andre the mammoth xxl porn videos', ain't no need to draw attention to it"

"Express your preference for the segment in which he prolapses. Again."

"Aight..."

*sobbing

"But only 'cause I want to..."

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

They also motivated endless generations to work as pizza delivery guys, plumbers or TV technicians

[–] Folstar@lemmus.org -1 points 2 months ago

I always feel bad for just a moment when I order a pizza because you know on some level the delivery guy is hoping this delivery will be the one. Sexy lady in a corset or maybe naked, maybe more than one lady! Sigh, just a big straight guy- at least he was polite and tipped well.

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the best part of the article (besides the decision of course) is the following:

“A Strike 3 Holding investigation found that 47 IP addresses belonging to Meta were used to torrent 2,396 of its videos a total of 6,008 times between 2018 and 2025.”

If videos are being downloaded more than once, it’s hard to argue it’s just for model training. lol.

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

$150,000 fine per civil infringement X 6,008 instances... $901,200,000.

Now assume a settlement for half the value and it's still $450M

Do it porn industry! On principle.

[–] thejml@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Honestly:

“A Strike 3 Holding investigation found that 47 IP addresses belonging to Meta were used to torrent 2,396 of its videos a total of 6,008 times between 2018 and 2025.”

That's 2396 x 6008 x $150,000=$2.159 Billion

And honestly, that's what they need to do. $450M is a cost of business expense.

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand your math.

[–] immutable@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

I think it’s due to an incorrect reading of this sentence

“A Strike 3 Holding investigation found that 47 IP addresses belonging to Meta were used to torrent 2,396 of its videos a total of 6,008 times between 2018 and 2025.”

There’s two interpretations of this sentence, that they was a total of 6008 downloads of 2396 videos, so some videos were downloaded multiple times.

The math in that comment is reading it to mean the 2396 items were downloaded 6008 each.

Since the original uses the clarifier “a total of 6,008” the first interpretation is the likely correct one and the commenter accidentally interpreted it the second, incorrect, way.

Easy enough mistake to make if you skip over the phrase “a total of”

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I hope Meta gets the shaft

They are mostly getting hit because they seeded, which is hilarious that even Meta couldn't risk get banned for hit and run on a tracker.