Those companies have been alive for a long time. Where's the proof they're going after them?

>What makes you think they aren't? Because it hasn't been discussed in the HN bubble?

Maybe post some proof that they are if you wanna make this argument.

Porn is also typically restricted. Just as many jurisdictions permit neither public consumption nor intoxication, everywhere I've lived had laws against publicly displaying "obscene" content.

The issue with GGP is that in context it appears to be an argument in favor of increasing restrictions (ie in favor of the events that the article is talking about) despite disclaiming that "You don't have to agree that it should be banned". That's analogous to a loaded question. Expressing agreement with the literal wording of GGP seems to also carry an implication of agreement with some rather different things as well.

>So you seem to be agreeing with GP that while you may not think it should be banned, you find it comparable to things that are widely recognized as "generally not good for people".

That's up for debate on what's "good for people". But I don't mind proper, formal laws from lawmakers restricting access of that's the will of that region. I will note that trying to restrict porn in the US has traditionally been difficult die to the first amendment.

My main point was: credit card is not a lawmaker. It should be as dumb a pipe as my ISP.

> What do you consider "healhty", though?

Whatever you want. Substance abuse rates. Marriage or long-term partnership rates. Employment. Income. Wealth. Serum cortisol.

My assumption is someone actively participating in something, even something unhealthy, is going to maintain cognitive and executive function above someone simply observing. (To the degree these games may be destructive, I'd argue it's in its game mechanics.)

We have no evidence pornography causes negative outcomes across population. (Versus among a vulnerable subset.) We have lots of evidence for social media addiction causing broad psychological issues, particularly in children.

I think your analogy is a bit off. The "watched it with" really changes the dynamic. There are quite a few activities that I'd take issue with adult neighbors doing with someone else's child. That's an entirely different question from a child doing things on his own or with other children.

Not defending the ratings system here, but there is a big gap between M and R/X or whatever your country uses.

A better question would be if you would be more comfortable with your child being shown porn or snuff movies. For me the answer would be neither, in about an equal measure

They're different things, yep.

I think parent comment is asking you to consider why you think young children watching violent movies is way less of a problem. E.g. "Terminator or similar" - why draw the line there?

Is it the public’s job to police what your son does or is it your job?

> I'm not saying we should ban anything.

That's the context of this entire discussion though, that these things are being banned…

> Maybe I'm weird but I would much rather prefer my son plays video games 8 hours a day than watches adult content 8 hours a day.

Isn't it the end result that matters? Presumably you'd like your son to become a functional adult. Neither of the scenarios you describe there sound like that to me (excepting perhaps "professional competitive gamer" but somehow I suspect most parents don't really approve of that outcome either).