this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
773 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

85547 readers
4488 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thejml@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't understand your math.

[–] immutable@lemmy.zip 20 points 3 days 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”