←back to thread

134 points salutis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
freestingo ◴[] No.45136259[source]
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

replies(4): >>45136417 #>>45138512 #>>45141297 #>>45143382 #
classified ◴[] No.45136417[source]
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.

replies(1): >>45140534 #
1. IAmBroom ◴[] No.45140534[source]
You're misreading freestingo. They didn't claim it was harmful; the article did.