• Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days 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…”

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.

      • Folstar@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      $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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

          • immutable@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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”