A completely absurd and clearly biased article trying to defend the impossible. Age verification is somehow supposed to be bad for online porn content providers (even though it is already mandatory for real-world porn content providers, for obvious reasons) because... it would hurt their profits and is not 100% effective. Child labour laws also severely hurt company profits and are not 100% effective; so much so that companies choose to delocalize production plants in the opposite part of the world, just to be able to continue exploiting workers. I guess child labour laws are bad too, and must be stopped.

My favourite and most out-of-touch part of the article was the one in which they argue it is "a fallacy" to think pornography can be harmful to teenagers because "research into pornography’s impact on children is limited and inconclusive — prompting calls for further study". I actually laughed out loud at this part

▲

Hizonner 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

If it were a serious problem, even very limited research wouldn't be "inconclusive". Actually important problems have big, obvious, indisputable effects. That's why they're important.

▲

IshKebab 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why did you laugh out loud? It's clear that it doesn't have large impacts on children - otherwise no research would be needed to know this, in the same way we don't really need research to know that over-use of alcohol fuels violence. If there's a small effect then we do need research to show it and that's extremely difficult to do and as far as I know nobody has.

Same deal as violent video games. What's your view on those?

▲

classified 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Could you please point us to credible sources about how online porn is supposed to be harmful to teenagers, beyond “If they knew I'm watching this, they'd laugh at me”?

As for the bad article, it's AI-generated slop.

	▲	IAmBroom 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're misreading freestingo. They didn't claim it was harmful; the article did.

▲

BriggyDwiggs42 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I definitely don’t wanna take it with more than a grain of salt, but they raise good points I think. For example, the idea it’s only enforced on big players so people will just go to shadier sites sounds like an issue IF it’s true. So it sounds more like it would be like 10% effective at keeping kids off porn.