https://nichegamer.com/dlsite-forced-to-block-german-users/
This German #WarOnPorn nonsense is just getting embarrassing at this point. Won't they just fire Tobias Schmid already? This wacky extremist is making the conservatives in the anglosphere look progressive.

Firstly, even if online porn "might" be problematic to someone out there, it would still not be anywhere remotely near proportionate to engage in censorship, or privacy intrusive measures.

Secondly, the typical recommendation is sex education, not censorship (which is harmful in it's own ways).

Thirdly, the science isn't really showing this:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427
https://psyarxiv.com/ehqgv/
Two studies showing porn is not associated with sexism. One carried out by German scientists, another carried out by Canadians.

https://qoto.org/@olives/110462274531891870
American scientists carried out a meta analysis of 59 studies. They found porn isn't associated with crime. A meta analysis is a study where someone studies studies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31432547/
Nor does it seem this is the case among adolescents (the meta analysis also points to that). Here, the minors who used more porn engaged in less sexual aggression.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
https://qoto.org/@olives/110400288665794817
There are even studies (across the United States, Japan, Finland, and more) showing that porn is associated with less crime, even among criminals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042055/
While an older Dutch study showed there might be worse levels of "sexual satisfaction" among adolescents using porn, a Croatian lab failed to replicate that.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563222001637
This is a meta analysis on sexualization in video games. It finds that studies tend to pick cutoffs where it's difficult to distinguish signal from noise. This increases the number of false positives.

There are also results which contradict the theory of sexualization being harmful. In the end, it fails to find a link between this and sexism, and this and mental well-being.

I'm usually sceptical of apparent links, as the "scientific pile on effect" (as one described it) drives people to go looking for "links" between porn and "something bad" however tenuous it might be, or methodologically flawed an approach it might be (and later, that something is debunked).

If it was Australia, I might add it doesn't matter if they're "child-like" or "fictional children" (this is far, far more likely to hit someone good than someone bad who don't need it). If it was actual real children, I would oppose that on ethical grounds (though, I still wouldn't want to burn down the Internet, because of unwanted bad actors). This is covered above but it is also kind of common internet sense.

Fourthly, "age verification" can also be harmful (and often unconstitutional). Scammers have been known to launch scams using this theme. It is also a violation of someone's right to freedom of expression, privacy, and puts them at a security risk.