@sebmeineck Long story.

https://pen.org/press-release/pen-america-responds-to-defunding-of-kinsey-institute-as-another-alarming-step-in-effort-to-exert-political-control-over-higher-education/ Some Republican lawmakers are even defunding sex research, apparently due to conspiracy theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_on_Sexual_Exploitation With this wave of bills, there's a group called NCOSE. They used to be a fundamentalist Christian morality group called Morality in Media. They rebranded in 2015. They're likely involved.

It would also help if lawmakers were more willing to protect people's constitutional rights. "Age verification" isn't just a violation of privacy. It's a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It impedes free expression. It exposes someone to potential blackmail and other nasty things from the leakage of their data. In theory, if there is some issue, some form of sex education would be objectively better (not only am I doubtful of censorship being helpful, it is also very harmful). I remember Dr. Ferguson suggested something like that a number of years ago?

By the way, no one really thinks of wanting minors on a site, they're thinking of entertaining other adults. They're not really an audience which comes to mind. But, then, if they are there, is it this big exaggerated terrible thing which these people make it out to be? I don't think so.

Also... If we look at some pieces of science...

https://www.utsa.edu/today/2020/08/story/pornography-sex-crimes-study.html Porn isn't linked to crime.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1023427 Or sexism...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault Some studies even show the opposite association when it comes to crime...

https://reason.com/2015/07/23/despite-all-the-panic-millennial-teens-h/ Teens appear to be having less sex not more in a world with more porn...?

Even if there was an association, it'd hard to argue it was causal, perhaps someone who is sexist is more likely to view something in particular? That would be reverse causation. That is, someone has the order of causality the wrong way around. Another possibility is a third variable which interacts with the two. Someone might work hard to find a "link" to something bad.

It can be an easy scapegoat because it is so common someone can point a finger at it, even when it isn't really relevant, or there is something else, like say, other mental health issues which might be better to address.

Often, what fundamentalists are trying to "fix" isn't porn usage, it is something like homosexuality which is a "sexual orientation". It is "conversion therapy" by another name. That never ends well.

I remember moralizing about sexual things itself can be harmful to oneself. Also: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29702013/

Also, IMO, if someone is interested in some taboos, consider if there isn't a satisfactory alternative which doesn't involve the other person being harmed? As a warning, what someone likes in porn isn't necessarily something they would want to act out. Maybe, that doesn't have to be said. I'll say it though. And I wouldn't presume a substitution simply because someone views something apparently similar. In any case, I think free expression contains a lot of value for people.

Aren't "thought crimes" silly anyway? If someone imagines a murder, is that the same as carrying out an act of murder? What if someone writes a horror novel where someone gets killed or other nasties? Is that the same as someone being killed? Perhaps, someone might get offended by these themes? Alternatively, they could just not read the book? Or perhaps, they're over-reacting...? And I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy reading horror novels. So, when it comes to "sexual violence" and the like, if it involves people who don't even exist, isn't it strange to then censor that...?

I think this might be less applicable in this case, because this sort of more mainstream platform can be more censorious (this is not necessarily a good thing), although calls to censorship (corporate or other) kind of have to contend with possibly violating someone's right to free expression. An odder (and very recent) example is one company fuming at another for not implementing one size fits all "look for potentially offensive keyword" censorship but then what if they don't even primarily deal in real actors and the like. And it can be stifling in itself.