160
Lidl recalls Paw Patrol snacks after website on packaging displayed porn (techcrunch.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [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.

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 61 points 2 years ago (2 children)

All that food wasted for something that could be fixed within the confines of the internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yep. These will all be recalled to stores who will immediately bin it. I love near a grocery store and seeing them do this shit is heartbreaking. Even more so when you realize they're dumping this perfectly edible food into locked dumpsters behind locked gates.

    You can literally see the pile of food they've thrown out when walking past the store.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    How many people are actually returning this product though? Nobody is going to any effort to return a product that costs so little.

    And everything I've read about this recall makes the reason clear so I can't see anyone opting not to just consume it - which more than likely they already did immediately on purchase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    We have 3 packets left in the house. I’m not taking them back.

    It’s not like it’s a QR code that someone could scan by accident, and my son doesn’t exactly care what the small print says on his food’s packaging.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    The product they're throwing out isn't stuff that's been returned, it's every affected product they have in stock, which could be loads. Not even donated. Just tossed out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    I agree, however, the domain had apparently expired (according to the article), which makes it a great deal harder to fix reasonably fast. I still think issuing a statement that they'd lost control of the domain would suffice, but no, apparently wasting food is better for the bottom line.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I get why they recall it, but let's be honest. How many people visit an URL found on food packaging? It's made for fans of the paw patrol show, and most kids that age don't come further then whatever game is popular on ios and android.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In reality they should have just said nothing, by recalling it and notifying the general public far more people are going to be aware of this. Had they just said nothing it probably would have flown way under the radar

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Anyone who wants to send one of those packages to me for, um, research purposes, please do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    If you want to know what it linked to, someone posted the link in another community. It seemed to be a Chinese landing site (looks like something along the lines of a “this domain could be yours”), with a bunch of affiliate porn ads (read: 88px X 88px animated gifs) like you might have seen in the mid 2000s.

    I couldn’t read any of it because it’s in Chinese, but that’s the gist of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I would have thought something named Paw Patrol would be a dog treat..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Porn patrol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Getting a real bang for your buck!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    Quite the shock here. Recalling it is the right move.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •