Hacker News Reader

Comment by nocitrek | Hacker News Reader

The point is that proportion of young adults that will access to porn will change from 100% to ~25%. Of course people will find a way, but the question is how much effort will they put in before they give up. If the effort barrier is too high, you will cull off some people - the purpose of this legislation.

View on HN

Why would it change? It's not like officially not being able buy alcohol stops anyone who wants to drink from drinking. We can pretend that this is the biggest danger that people under 18 face, but let's be real, much worse things can happen to them, than watching porn.

This shouldn't be solved at the government level, but at the family level. By parents talking to kids.

Also, unless they implement something like the PRC's firewall, it will a 100% be an inept solution that's easy to get around.

I think many men today have their brains altered from watching too much excessive porn. Fetishes develop and normal healthy relationships become problematic due to performance issues. There are many worse thing than porn, yes, but to be healthy well rounded adult, it does not help (at least excessive). Family can help, but some topics are taboo in many families, especially when man ego is in question. If you could not statisfy your wife, would you speak with your mother for help?

Yes, you can say it should start from young age, but both parents are at work and kids are left with high-speed internet and tablets. They react positively to porn and can get addicted - its a single click away. Hard to prevent that, eh.

I think we will witness the true effect of porn on males mind in future.

I generally agree with you about the effects of porn, especially on children, it definitely had an effect on me.

But, this kind of age verification bullshit will not help anyone. The politicians will be able to say they did something, and the parents will feel that they don't have to worry about this, making their children even more vulnerable.

I think porn addiction, and its effects are a societal issue, that can not be solved by legislation, only by making it a non-taboo topic, and talking about inside the family.

Edit, ps: your replies are marked as dead for some reason when you make them, and I had to vouch for it before being able to reply.

I share your concerns. However I have a hard time believing that politicians who claim to also share these concerns are being sincere.

If it were 100% -> 25% I could see the value/justification. Even if it were 100% -> 90% there's value there. But these restrictions will not have any impact whatsoever. Anyone who wants access will have it regardless of age verification measures.

I remember when cigarette vending machines were banned. I'm sure it had 0.000000 (repeating of course) percent effect on the availability of cigarettes to kids who were motivated to get them. Same with alcohol regulations. Same with weed. Anyone with even an ounce of motivation can and will bypass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com