Olives @olives@qoto.org

I've made some small alterations and added a new paragraph, although it isn't a big change.

Reposting as this seems like a good time to do so. Despite the scant / non-existent evidence for porn being such a bogeyman, it keeps getting cast as a scapegoat which is quite frustrating, so I am going to have to go over this... Again.

Even if online porn "might" be "problematic" to someone out there, it would not be anywhere remotely near proportionate to engage in censorship (or privacy intrusive measures, which among other things might pose a security risk), especially as it can be free expression to someone, and expression which someone might casually share as part of their more general interaction / engagement with others.

Sometimes, restrictions can lead to services becoming inaccessible entirely, rather than simply limiting them to people over a particular age.

A typical recommendation is sex education (perhaps, teach someone about respecting others boundaries?), not censorship (which is harmful in it's own ways). I don't mean criticizing someone for telling an offensive joke.

The science isn't really showing porn is this awful thing:

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 necessarily 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 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 also 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, or the "link" is a phantom due to methodological limitations).

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, and a bad actor could still do bad things)*. This necessarily excludes involvement of abuse or invasions of privacy. If it were 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.

While I'm not making a point about anything in particular, to inoculate you against potential problematic arguments, it's worth mentioning the basic precept that correlation does not imply causation.

Let's use ice cream as an example. Everyone loves ice cream, right? Well, I like ice cream. This also happens to be used as a classic example by others for this sort of thing.

Anyway, ice cream is correlated with crime. No one would say ice cream causes people to go out and commit crimes though. Just because there is a "correlation" doesn't mean it is meaningful. And that's not the only way in which correlation might not imply causation. For instance, warm weather is a far more compelling explanation for this phenomena. That might come in useful somewhere...

Here's a couple which were added for #auspol:

https://reason.com/2015/07/23/despite-all-the-panic-millennial-teens-h/ U.S. data shows teens are having less sex with each other (in a world with more porn).

Misapprehensions about porn can be more about expressions of sexual orientations than porn. In fact, we've seen an Australian news outlet specifically singling out "anal sex" as a negative thing not that long ago, who would that disproportionately impact? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29702013/ Also, moralizing can be harmful (and ineffective).

Typically, responsibility is put on individuals to behave in a manner that is reasonable to them, instead of looking for a scapegoat whenever someone behaves in a manner which could be argued to be negative. This isn't to discount external factors (i.e. socioeconomic ones) entirely but there isn't always something sensible which can be done. People live their own lives.

We might also want to look at how alcohol is handled. We tend to look at this through the lens of personal responsibly, that someone is reasonable for consuming it responsibly, and not behaving inappropriately. Now, alcohol is not the same thing as porn, it is an actual substance, not some pixels on the screen. It further illustrates though how strange and unusual the idea of censorship here is.

Quite a few things which might get blamed on "the porn" are actually general mental health issues which could be dealt with more normally, and crucially, without conflating it with porn (which might even detract from dealing with someone's actual issues).

In fact, online censorship has increased in quite a few ways over the past few years and it doesn't appear to be any sort of panacea. It has, however, created a number of harms in it's own right, including even murder by practically forcing some sex workers to work with more dangerous clients. It also provides a space for abusive bigots to dwell in.

An addendum (from another post which might be useful to add useful context, we won't delve too deeply into this section):

An additional bit on why "porn censorship" (perhaps, even some themes) is bad.

Some points about censoring fictional content there (censorship is a bad idea):

It might fuel someone's persecution complex, especially in the context of *. The idea of a dangerous world where people are out to get them. Feeds anxiety, alienation. It's happened a fair bit. It doesn't seem to do anything positive.

Someone might be more inclined to see someone as an idiot or crazy (that's not wrong, lol). In any case, it poisons the well as someone is not seen to be credible or competent in these matters at all. Promoting distrust doesn't seem like a positive outcome.

It violates someone's free expression. People have these things called rights, that's important. This point comes from the original post, I'm aware I've covered this here more generally, still there may be value in reaffirming it.

Bad people don't need it. They could still do bad things. Good people are who'd suffer.

It violates the Constitution. Multiple constitutions.

Punishing someone because they resemble someone unpleasant isn't good. Also, due process still applies, in any case...

Can be a coping mechanism.

#FreeSpeech

The first consultation regarding classification and censoring things like sexual expression is going to be closing soon so I recommend looking at that before it does. #auspol #anime #FreeSpeech #FreeExpression

"It's not a platform's fault for blasting lots of reports which they reckon are very unlikely to be child porn and are never going to be followed up on." (paraphrased)

Actually, it is. Accusing someone of being a child predator (or whatever it is someone is thinking) is an egregious violation of #privacy and part of why #chatcontrol is so notorious.

And if we're gonna admit they're never going to be followed up on, then surely it should be a no-brainer to prune it back to protect people's privacy? If it takes legislation to do this, then so be it.

This U.S. "AI" consultation doesn't adequately take free expression into consideration and you might want to address that. #FreeSpeech

For an influencer, something like Instagram or YouTube might be a better choice, as it provides someone with a "comment section" which they can moderate.

The Twitter like model of the fediverse is more tuned to random people casually going in to talk to random other people in perhaps the most random of ways (something which a few people seem to dislike).

The fediverse is probably not a place for influencers with a trillion followers and I'm not sure why people want it to be.

https://nichegamer.com/moonlight-peaks-gets-publisher-xseed-games/ Interesting idea.

I thought of adding more to the post but I think I'll leave it at that for now.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/solitary-confinement-effects
As I've mentioned before, solitary confinement is a form of torture. #HumanRights.

https://reclaimthenet.org/uncs-crusade-against-anonymous-apps-sparks-free-speech-firestorm
"The University of North Carolina (UNC) is moving to ban anonymous social apps, supposedly out of declarative concern for the students’ well-being."

"However, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) non-profit sees anonymous apps as valuable tools for students to express themselves without fear, as self-censorship has been on the rise in US universities in recent years.

According to FIRE’s Program Officer Jessie Appleby, blocking these apps is tantamount to “getting rid of that outlet for constructive speech just because of a small amount of offensive speech, and that’s generally not how you want to approach speech.”"
#FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech #privacy

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/10/congressional-committee-threatens-to-investigate-any-company-helping-tiktok-defend-its-rights/
"As the rest of that paragraph makes clear, there was very much an implied threat that Congress would investigate organizations working with TikTok to defend its rights. I’m also hearing that others, like PR agencies and lobbying organizations that work with TikTok, are now facing similar threats from Congress."
This looks like a violation of the #FirstAmendment. #FreeSpeech

Where were you between the hours of 3 am and 4 am. No, I'm not a cop, I'm a marketer. #privacy

I need to verify you are not a child.

Just send me a copy of your ID, bank records, and credit card details. Thanks. #privacy

A flood destroyed the town. The economy isn't doing too well now. I wonder why. Huh, quite a few people are drinking alcohol now (maybe from losing their homes). Well, it's got to be that doing it.

Not a real example but you get the analogy.

Social isolation is known to be associated with abuse (and a host of other negative ailments too, for that matter).

So, "abuse went up around covid" is more likely to do with that than any of the other scapegoats someone might go looking for.