The main stat cited in this article is misleading.
Also, it wasn’t 62 million individuals, it was total monthly site visits. You can count as tens, hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of visits to any given site as long as you visit it enough. (and depending on how that number is calculated)
Doesn’t mean this isn’t a problem, but it doesn’t mean there are 62 million men out there actively visiting this site every month for that kind of content…
…and the views also included every category of content on the site, much of which is just what you could find on any porn site.
So just to clarify - the 62 million visitors were in one month, as Snopes makes clear.
However as you say 62 million visits in internet terms is a nonsense and not equivalent to unique visitors. Such metrics count every page hit so 1 user browsing through pages in one visit will count as multiple visits, and that user may return multiple times.
And the biggest piece of information is that this is a general porn site, with 100 categories of porn. As snopes says “Examples include “blonde,” “skinny” and “webcam” — among many others.” So we don’t actually know who viewed this particular category.
CNN did a decent investigation particularly as they found a telegram group with 1000 users, but the porn site stuff has been misreported by other outlets. We live in an era of slop journalism where people just steal content from the source and make crap poorly researched content from it, or spread stupid rumours.
I noticed that sleep themed videos began being suggested online after that famous case in France. I found it ironic. The case rose awareness, I guess.
What does this say about society? I don’t know. These same websites also recommend poop videos. I’m pretty sure access to the internet has messed people up.
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.
You’re not wrong, but they just used AI to get 2M daily users from 60M monthly visitors. Which feels silly to me, but it’s just dividing 60M by 30, and it’s not done wrong.
I’m not interested in reading something someone regurgitated from ai, but I won’t hold someone using them for arithmetic against their arguments (but please just use a calculator).
Sure, but a red flag is a warning sign, not an automatic rejection (at least in my parlance). They did notice that the original commenter was misinterpreting where 62M comes from and their comment thus brings more clarity to this thread, making it not a waste of time.
If we fully agreed, it would have been unnecessary for me to comment :)
I think it’s pointless and wasteful to use ai to answer questions or provide information like this, but I’ll read a comment written by a human who does, because I see that there is often still something valuable to me there. Others having a different line for their acceptance of AI is to be expected, but I still wanted to point out the use I got out of this comment, in case it prompts others to get use out of comments in the future, in spite of their writers’ use of ai.
The main stat cited in this article is misleading.
Also, it wasn’t 62 million individuals, it was total monthly site visits. You can count as tens, hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of visits to any given site as long as you visit it enough. (and depending on how that number is calculated)
Doesn’t mean this isn’t a problem, but it doesn’t mean there are 62 million men out there actively visiting this site every month for that kind of content…
…and the views also included every category of content on the site, much of which is just what you could find on any porn site.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/online-rape-academy-cnn/
So just to clarify - the 62 million visitors were in one month, as Snopes makes clear.
However as you say 62 million visits in internet terms is a nonsense and not equivalent to unique visitors. Such metrics count every page hit so 1 user browsing through pages in one visit will count as multiple visits, and that user may return multiple times.
And the biggest piece of information is that this is a general porn site, with 100 categories of porn. As snopes says “Examples include “blonde,” “skinny” and “webcam” — among many others.” So we don’t actually know who viewed this particular category.
CNN did a decent investigation particularly as they found a telegram group with 1000 users, but the porn site stuff has been misreported by other outlets. We live in an era of slop journalism where people just steal content from the source and make crap poorly researched content from it, or spread stupid rumours.
I noticed that sleep themed videos began being suggested online after that famous case in France. I found it ironic. The case rose awareness, I guess.
What does this say about society? I don’t know. These same websites also recommend poop videos. I’m pretty sure access to the internet has messed people up.
Same thing as copycat killers and echo mass shootings, I guess.
Edit: actually, that’s unfair, same monkey see monkey do happens with charity and the like, it’s not all bad.
Nice trying to misquote statistics… /Edit This was not intentional so that should be noted as updated comment
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:
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.
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.
Bye!
You’re not wrong, but they just used AI to get 2M daily users from 60M monthly visitors. Which feels silly to me, but it’s just dividing 60M by 30, and it’s not done wrong.
I’m not interested in reading something someone regurgitated from ai, but I won’t hold someone using them for arithmetic against their arguments (but please just use a calculator).
There’s a double red flag:
To read such a comment further is a waste of time.
Sure, but a red flag is a warning sign, not an automatic rejection (at least in my parlance). They did notice that the original commenter was misinterpreting where 62M comes from and their comment thus brings more clarity to this thread, making it not a waste of time.
I think we disagree. I find such flaws to poison the whole well.
If we fully agreed, it would have been unnecessary for me to comment :)
I think it’s pointless and wasteful to use ai to answer questions or provide information like this, but I’ll read a comment written by a human who does, because I see that there is often still something valuable to me there. Others having a different line for their acceptance of AI is to be expected, but I still wanted to point out the use I got out of this comment, in case it prompts others to get use out of comments in the future, in spite of their writers’ use of ai.
I wasn’t “trying” to do anything. I misread it. Don’t automatically apply guilt to people.
I’ll update my comment.
Fair enough!