this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
165 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

59466 readers
3354 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] aggelalex@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 23 points 1 year 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.

[–] andthenthreemore@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lidl returns it's food to the distribution centres to be turned into energy. It's wasteful but it's not just in the dumpster out back.

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

That's something at least.

[–] StudioLE@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] neckmeister@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year 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.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year 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.

[–] madsen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year 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.

[–] DosDude@retrolemmy.com 29 points 1 year 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.

[–] The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org 12 points 1 year 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

Could have been against the law if they knew they had compromised package labels that displayed porn to children and they did nothing about it.

[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

They noticed their error and took at least symbolic steps to fix it. This is the right way to deal with errors. Ignoring/hiding almost always backfires.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

Someone did notice it and informed them. If they did nothing then they could get in trouble for inaction.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Porn patrol

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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

[–] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 12 points 1 year ago

appykidsco.com

(NSFW / Chinese Adware / Possible Malware)

No malware was noticed but I'd use uBlock and a VPN, disable JavaScript, and a good antivirus at a minimum...

[–] BlueSquid0741@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year 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.

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Free biscotti and a link to free porn sounds great. I'll happily take the recalled product off their hands for disposal.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

See? Now you get it.

[–] madsen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The domain is mentioned in the article.

[–] neckmeister@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I have one of the packets in my hand.

I have checked and can confirm that it’s true.

Am I going to take it back to Lidl? Am I fuck.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

well, the url in question is in the article

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Thank you for ruining my joke.

[–] 68silver@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Uhh why not take down the site instead of wasting perfectly edible products?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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).

[–] valen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So they could have bought the site and taken care of it for minimal cost.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] nyar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Read the article?

[–] archaeologist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Getting a real bang for your buck!

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

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