▲ 160 ▼ Lidl recalls Paw Patrol snacks after website on packaging displayed porn (techcrunch.com) submitted 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world 30 comments fedilink hide all child comments Lidl recalls Paw Patrol snacks after website on packaging displayed porn::Superstore giant Lidl recalled Paw Patrol snacks after a website listed on the packaging displayed explicit content unsuitable for children.
[+] scytale@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) They don't own the site. Per the article - the URL is no longer owned and the webhost just added random ad links to it in the case of false positives (which is very common) and porn ads bought the cheap space (which is also very common). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] valen@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So they could have bought the site and taken care of it for minimal cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* I assure you that the cost/benefit analysis of recalling the flawed packaging versus buying the site was done. At least three different groups of people, and probably four, maybe five, were involved in this entire process and the recall is almost certainly the fastest and most financially-viable option considering the chain of custody of the packaging. permalink fedilink source parent [–] nyar@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Read the article? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) They don't own the site. Per the article - the URL is no longer owned and the webhost just added random ad links to it in the case of false positives (which is very common) and porn ads bought the cheap space (which is also very common). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] valen@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So they could have bought the site and taken care of it for minimal cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* I assure you that the cost/benefit analysis of recalling the flawed packaging versus buying the site was done. At least three different groups of people, and probably four, maybe five, were involved in this entire process and the recall is almost certainly the fastest and most financially-viable option considering the chain of custody of the packaging. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] valen@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So they could have bought the site and taken care of it for minimal cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* I assure you that the cost/benefit analysis of recalling the flawed packaging versus buying the site was done. At least three different groups of people, and probably four, maybe five, were involved in this entire process and the recall is almost certainly the fastest and most financially-viable option considering the chain of custody of the packaging. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* I assure you that the cost/benefit analysis of recalling the flawed packaging versus buying the site was done. At least three different groups of people, and probably four, maybe five, were involved in this entire process and the recall is almost certainly the fastest and most financially-viable option considering the chain of custody of the packaging. permalink fedilink source parent