@arcade @ctrl You can thank #FOSTA, #SESTA, #JuSchG & most likely soon as well #KOSA for that...
Cuz those #NSFW-Accounts just want to avoid any kind of reactionary shitstorm and cops harrassing them because some minor interacted with their posts.
Not that minors can't see them but unless one interacts with these they can at least claim they "didn't knew" some minor was interacting with their posts...
It's like #COPPA a legal figleaf, but we all know that #PornHub targets minors like #NSAbook / #StasiBook and #TikTok targets under-12 yr olds, and that their "Im over 18 / 13" self-questionnaire only exists because some lawyers and judges demand it and think that's sufficient.
OFC I could go on about #MediaLiteracy and how banning stiff isn't a way to do #Parenting but then we'd be here for another dozen posts...
@kkarhan @arcade @ctrl For passively consuming online porn, sex education is one recommendation I've seen mentioned by psychologists, although got to watch out, because some conservatives like to dress up their opinionated rhetoric as "education" too.
I.E. Instead of teaching someone things normally, they instead decide to ram down someone's throat about how Porn is Evil, how LGBT acts are Evil (some curriculums in the U.S. have that, the more you know), and other ideological talking points in a propagandistic fashion.
That said, I also think that some very morally motivated people are trying to make more out of online porn when the evidence of it being some terrible thing isn't really there. Even if it were "problematic" in a few cases, censorship and intrusions on privacy would not be remotely proportionate, I mean, it's prejudicing other people too, and it approaches living in a big prison.
I think that probably keeping obvious minors away from adult spaces is trying to avoid trouble.
@olives @arcade @ctrl
EXACTLY THAT!
It's not as if minors are gonna obey the "18+ only" signs anyway...
It's just complying to what lawyers say would be sufficient.