WhatThaFudge

u/WhatThaFudge@lemmy.world
1 posts · 80 comments

Recent posts

Recent comments

Nice trying to misquote statistics.. /Edit This was not intentional so that should be noted as updated comment

However, the "62 million" figure cited in social media posts represented the total number of visits to the pornographic website in February 2026

That is not UP UNTIL that month.. that is just in that month..

From just monthly visits you cannot possibly determine the active user count but you can compare it to similar activity sites.

A quick AI Slop Overview gives you The average daily active users for a site with 60 million visits in a month would be approximately 2 million

this is skewed statistics as we want active users not visits so with a bit more refining defining Visits Per User

For adult/porn sites, VPU typically skews higher than general content because users often visit multiple times per day. Reasonable VPU ranges to use for estimates:

Low-engagement assumption: 3–7 visits per month
Moderate-engagement (common): 10–30 visits per month
High-engagement power users: 30–90+ visits per month

Dividing this by 30 (mid numbers) we still get a very high estimate of around 2 Million Monthly Active Users.

For context.. Crunchyroll as a websites average around 10 Million MAU.

In fact, women never said 62 million men were involved in the raping themselves. Women’s concern was that 62 million men were collectively engaged in the crime through their consumption of the content and their failure to report it. They were therefore co-conspirators, enablers, complicit, aiding and abetting the rapists and helping them monetize their crimes.

The real problem is that each month that site gets visits from what is more likely men than women who approve and support this type of behavior. Even if the 62 million is an exaggeration it is extremely disturbing that these visitors are OK with this and helping the actual rapist monetize their crimes.

The major difference between the two bills is the Senate's introduction of a ban that would prevent any investor that owns at least 350 homes from buying more.

There are some exceptions to the bill's limits on institutional owners, such as **allowing investors to buy homes needing serious renovation in order to bring them up to code, and allowing investors to own new homes constructed for renting, **known as build-to-rent. But investors would be required to sell those homes after seven years, with the renter having first dibs to purchase.

In an open letter, 79 industry groups representing property managers like the Institute of Real Estate Management, as well as advocacy organizations pushing for more local housing construction, said they support new housing legislation but believe the Senate version should remove the sale requirement on build-to-rent homes. The letter warns that the provision "would effectively eliminate the production of Build-to-Rent (BTR) housing."

So basically the only provision in the BTR housing that is good for consumers is what they want removed so they can build and own an infinite number of forever to rent properties. And if its an already constructed property they can pay a goon to rough it up enough so it needs serious renovations to bypass their 350 home limit and acquire it cheaper.

The ease on regulations come in form of lowered quality of construction and less environmental safety during construction. No ease on regulation for zoning that would actually help create better communities.

"We put this bill together with the deep-seated belief that it is families who should live in homes and that's what homes are for," said Warren. "They're not there simply as investment vehicles for Wall Street private equity."

Eat shit Warren