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.
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
581 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
85833 readers
2974 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
And VCRs and modern streaming video players. Pornhub had better seeking, thumbnails, and the "people watched this part" graph before YouTube.
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.
I've always rooted for big porn
And small porn. It's not about the size, it's about what you do with it.
I was in the pool!
And the water was cold
Masturbation. That's what people do with it
They also motivated endless generations to work as pizza delivery guys, plumbers or TV technicians
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
They brought us HD, 4K, VR
They also brought us video streaming and online payment systems. Both were technologies pioneered by porn sites.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I bet the jury had to thoroughly inspect the video evidence.
Never been more jealous of a jury until now.
Well, at least the first few minutes before they had to break for recess.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Their LLMs might get a little confused now when people ask about British shows on BBC.
"Generate an image of David Tennant as the Doctor on the BBC."
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
$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.
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 23966008$150,000=$2.159 Billion
And honestly, that's what they need to do. $450M is a cost of business expense.
I don't understand your math.
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”
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Do they mention if the trackers were private? It'll be interesting to see in discovery the details of the trackers and which ones are being monitored by the industry.
Pretty much every public tracker is monitored
Private ones too. Privacy in private trackers is largely a myth, and you should be using a VPN regardless of public or private.
If you (a relative Joe Schmo Nobody in the torrenting scene) can get an invite to the private tracker, you really think a billion dollar media industry couldn’t arrange to get one too? Of course they have straw-man accounts on the big private trackers, and of course they’re quietly seeding media to be able to log IP addresses that connect to the swarm.
The only real benefit private trackers have is better seeding requirements (meaning stuff typically downloads faster, and is less likely to stall indefinitely) and better request systems (meaning obscure media is usually easier to find, and you can request media that is missing).
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I hope Meta gets the shaft
alone_in_the_dark.jpeg
Hopefully this is just the beginning. Go after all of the AIs!
Not Weird Al
Everyone needs to sue Meta
Cue settlement because Meta cannot stomach discovery on this one. As the article shows, this lawsuit comes from discovery in a different lawsuit. These are the sorts of dominos that trigger settlements.
The settlement should include the removal of anything that was gained by training on the data. Meta will complain that the data is too ingrained in the model and can't be removed. They likely aren't wrong but that does not seem like Blacked's problem. Maybe sell them a license to continue to use the data at $200k per year per video until they can definitively prove that none of the data is still in the model?
Now that would be interesting, because you can't prove a negative. The only way for Meta to prove that none of the videos is making their way intot he model is to provide clear evidence of all the other videos and stuff that are making their way into the model.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Does this pave the way forward for all published content, then? Especially if they win their case against meta (or more likely just receive a fat settlement out of court)
This seems to mean that Meta can’t have the case dismissed. So I’m guessing that other companies who can demonstrate similar downloading patterns, or present similar evidence can also bring a case forward.
I’d imagine that the outcome of the case will be more telling.
Wa-howww! That is not a headline I had on my bingo card for today.
Ok, so this is happening in the northern California district, so once it gets before an appellate don't hold y'all's breathe. And you can better make damn sure you don't bet against meta bribing someone to make sure it happens in Texas, on polymarket!
But also 47 addresses streamed 2,800 some odd videos 6,000 times! Of which it seems there was a mention of ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987-1996),’, so does that mean they watched all the cartoons and movies back to back?
load more comments
(1 replies)
The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend
Meta needs to get fucked with one of those BBDs.
This is the weirdest fucking timeline I swear to Cthulhu
view more: next ›