Hacker News Reader

> Over 70% of teenagers <18 today have watched porn [1]. We all know (many from experience) that kids easily get around whatever restrictions adults put on their computers. We all know the memes about "click here if you're 18" being far less effective than "click here if you're not a robot."

And we all turned out fine I might add. In fact there's a lot more attention to consent and respect for women than 20 years ago.

Of course not counting the toxic masculine far right but that doesn't have anything to do with porn but everything with hate.

> And we all turned out fine I might add.

Absolutely not. You might personally feel like (or want to tell yourself that) porn didn't negatively affect you. I can tell you with certainty that porn negatively affected my social and sexual development. (I was literally afraid to physically open my mouth around girls when I was 10 years old because of porn.)

> Of course not counting the toxic masculine far right but that doesn't have anything to do with porn but everything with hate.

There are plenty of pipelines between porn and "toxic masculinity."

Is porn the biggest problem here? What I've seen points the finger at social media as the worst offender for youth mental health.

Also, access to porn isn't new with the internet. When we cleared out my grandpa's house we had to pry open a desk that was chock full of hustlers.

> access to porn isn't new with the internet

“Ease of access” and “easy access to the most depraved shit you can think of that’s out there” is what changed. That is what is wrong and why many people feel we need to find some way to control that access.

The Internet didn’t come along until I was well into adulthood. Think about what porn access looked like in the late ‘70s and ‘80s. As a teen we were “lucky” if by some rare miracle a friend stole their dad’s Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler and stashed it in the woods (couldn’t risk your parents finding it under your mattress) for us dudes to learn the finer points of female anatomy. In a week it would be washed out from the elements with nary a nipple to be seen. Those magazines (even hustler) was soft compared to what a few clicks can find today. Basically you got degrees of nudity back then, but we appreciated it.

Hardcore video was very rare to see as a horny teen kid in the ‘80s. Most porn movies was still pretty well confined to theaters, but advent of VHS meant (again by sheer luck) you had to have a friend whose parents happened to be in to it, who had rented or bought a video, it was in the house and accessible, all the adults had to be gone from the house so you could hurry up and watch a few minutes on the family’s one TV with a VCR. You needed to build in viewing time along with rewind time to hide your tracks.

Now…parents just leave the room for a few minutes and a willing kid with a couple of clicks could be watching something far beyond the most hardcore thing I saw as a teen.

I doubt that the porn in the 70s was less bad than the porn today. Legal CSAM was being sold openly so what makes you think that it was more tame than modern stuff?

The fact is that as difficult as it was to get, you got a hold of it and watched it. Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway?

Are you implying that perhaps 15-25 mins worth of porn video total throughout all of someone’s teenage years due to such rare access of the material would have a similar emotional and mental impact as having the ability to see that much daily for years as is possible now?

There could have been years between the opportunities we had. I don’t think you conceptualize just how infrequent the opportunity would present itself.

I'm not making any claims about mental or emotional impacts, you are. What are they?

For instance [1]. I am speaking out of experience, as a GenZ person who has been first introduced to the entire world of sex and porn at EIGHT years old. I myself feel it has harmed my brain in ways which I'll likely never fully understand.

[1] https://eprints.qut.edu.au/217360/1/__qut.edu.au_Documents_S...

A couple of comments above, you said: “Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway”

So exactly what is the target of the “difference” you are referring to then here? You are referencing a differential in something…if not psychological impact from the viewing of said material…what would that something be?

Person 1: "People are exposed to many more chemicals now than in the 70s, and they smell worse"

Person 2: "I don't think that they actually smell worse, and people were still exposed to chemicals in the 70s, so why would it make a difference?"

Person 1: "Are you saying that the health effects of chemical exposure are lessened because they are exposed to some chemicals as opposed to a lot of chemicals?"

Person 1 is using a claim that is not proven by their statements to make Person 2 responsible for a claim they never conceded was true.

Person 2 is disputing that Person 1's mechanisms make a difference not that their conclusion is valid.

Person 1: I once or twice got a small drop of a dangerous chemical on my skin in 1982

Person 2: I bathe in that same chemical for 30 minutes every single day. It’s no different than 1982. The risk of harm is the same.

In this case Person 2 has no duty to prove that bathing in it is fine or that getting exposed to a small drop is dangerous.

If Person 1 is claiming that there are harmful effects, they are required to prove that they exist and explain why bathing in it causes those effects while being exposed to it otherwise does not.

Person 2 has no duty to prove anything (or to enter the conversation at all), but Person 2 isn't going to convince anyone of their viewpoint by choosing not to attempt to prove their point. By choosing to say "not my problem," Person 2 is accepting liability for not attempting to change their opponent's minds if/when they get out-voted on the issue in the real world, as is currently happening.

If people want to be swayed by emotional appeals with no evidence, I can't stop them. But I am not going to play that same game in response.

What an interesting deflection. My initial comment mentioned the significant difference in access to porn between today and 40-50 years ago. You made a claim that it was meaningless. You brought the concept of its “effect” to the conversation.

It is interesting that you are accusing me of deflection when you are arguing with me about why it is my duty to prove you wrong instead of defending your premise. Let's start with the specific harms that porn causes.

No, I never made any claim that you have any duty to do anything at all, that is something you are inventing. Frankly, I don’t care if you explain anything or not. I provided information about the ease of access of porn among young people pre-internet. You made a claim that ease of access didn’t matter. I asked for clarity on that and you don’t want to provide it.

So be it.

> would have a similar emotional and mental impact

You never stated what that impact was, and then tried to make me explain why you are wrong without you defining what your hypothesis is. What is the emotional and mental impact of porn? Why do you press for clarity from me, when you are the one that should be providing it?

I brought up that ease of access was significantly different then and now. That’s the lived experience I brought to the greater conversation. You didn’t argue that I was wrong about that ease of access, you decided to bring its effect into the conversation and said it didn’t matter. I made no reference to the effects in my original comment because it wasn’t about that. It was about ease of access being different. Only after you brought up effect did the conversation shift that way.

You left your thought and argument (whatever that was), incomplete. That’s your prerogative, but it’s a poor debate technique if your hope is to convince someone of your opinion.

Ok then, enjoy your bath. Hopefully it’s fine.

But it's been illegal to peddle porn to minors for much longer than it's been illegal to peddle social media, so it's a good proxy for how effective our current efforts are.

The approximate substitute-good for porn is actual sex, which parents generally stop teens from doing. The substitute-good for social media is talking to people in person, which parents are generally happy with.

> Parental control software has existed for decades. It hasn't worked.

How would you know whether it has worked or not? Wouldn't the relevant criteria be up to parents themselves?

It's also already illegal to send porn to a minor. Porn companies that transmit porn to minors are already committing a sex crime.

It might as well not be illegal if there's no way to prosecute it, and the pre-age-verification status quo was that there was no way to prosecute it.

> has existed

Sorry, but if you would actually read my post, you would notice that I am not proposing that it should merely "exist", but that it should come enabled by default on all new devices.

My point is that being enabled by default on all new devices 1) would also be fought by people very similar to you (if not you specifically), and 2) would not be effective if the enabled-by-default software is not effective, which would also require additional work that you and people like you would fight.

I do agree it could be done. I disagree with your characterization that it would be easy/easier, or that the current age verification efforts are entirely nefarious and not actually trying to work the problem.