Good point. Its just really bad to present slander as scientific or journalistic. Even for a pre purge state of pornhub, the claim that there was a child porn category is just really really wrong.
But that post was quite helpful, i think we got the point responsible for the different perspectives.
>We often discuss articles from the past on here.
The article, as well as the study dont present it as a picture of the past but one of the present state. The guardian article is from yesterday and the study had been going on for 18 months. Presenting stuff they found from 2019, with quite questionable methodology at that, as current breaches journalistic, scientific and ethical standards.
>Are you saying that what the study claims was not true at the time of their research?
Unfortunately the study itself doesnt seem to have a date, but from the article, yes absolutely.
edit: URL of the PDF of the report contains the same date as the guardian article.