I see the "age verification" language now (or that posted on social media), it doesn't seem to cover porn containing sites per se (although, maybe someone could twist it against them, i.e. like Germany seemed to). It is a... worrying one to have on principle, even if it is used in far fewer cases, as it is an inherently privacy intrusive measure (and might even practically prevent someone being able to access content...). In practice, it might wind up turning into de facto blocks in a lot of cases, like with Germany.

That said, I see how it might've made a tempting compromise... Ugh...

I suppose if a puritan shows up, there is this:

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. Especially, as it can be important free expression to someone.

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

Thirdly, the science isn't really showing this:
Two studies showing porn is not associated with sexism. One carried out by German scientists, another carried out by Canadians.
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.
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.
There are even studies (across the United States, Japan, Finland, and more) showing that porn is associated with less crime, even among criminals.
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.
This is a meta analysis on sexualization in video games. It finds that studies tend to pick cut-offs 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).

I could 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'd oppose that on ethical grounds (though, I still wouldn't want to burn down the Internet / sites, because of unwanted bad actors). This is covered above but it is also kind of common internet sense.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.