Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewaylett | Hacker News Reader

This is good news. I fear that the two sides of the debate have been talking past each other -- it would obviously be a good idea to stop children from viewing porn, but there are three problems with that requirement: it won't stop all access, it won't magically just block for children and it won't only block pornography, even by the conservative standards of what I'd prefer not to see.

I have primary-school-age children, and to my mind the best way to protect them is sensible supervision and a good ad-blocker.

View on HN

"it would obviously be a good idea to stop children from viewing porn"

Nonsense. I'm bloody glad I had access to porn as a closeted gay teenager. Without access to Internet porn, my teenage years would have been far more miserable and lonely.

It was only a decade ago when Section 28 was still the law of the land. Internet porn was giving plenty of gay teenagers the sex education that society and the education system was too prudish and/or fearful to give them.

To be a little nit-picker here, but he specifically said children, wereas you said teenagers.

I too believe it is a good idea to make sure 6 years old don't stumple on a inter-racial shemale anal-gangbang site before they are old enough to understand what sex is.

Teenagers are an entirely different catagory.

According to the law, they really aren't.

That said, I think the under 10s probably need parental supervision anyway.

The law may not discriminate between teenagers and children, but I would question the parentalabilities on a parent who still treat their 14 year old as if she was 6 or 9.

As, I imagine, would the child authorities.

I wish I could upvote this multiple times. Teenage years are a period usually with low self steam, confusion and doubts. At least porn helps teens to calm their hormones in healthier way than the alternatives: striptease, hookers, "bad girls" or drugs. And with internet they can do it from the safety and privacy of their own home without the risk of doing anything stupid to watch people having sex. And of course, like you mention being gay doesn't help with all of those puberty issues.

I'm curious what's unhealthy about these:

> striptease, hookers, "bad girls"

Maybe I'm just thinking slowly this saturday, but couldn't it be argued that those all have the virtue of giving social interaction that porn does not give, and giving a realistic view of what sex involves?

Hookers and "bad girls" make the risk of STDs higher. Also they all cost money. Also you may end up in places that increase the risk of being robbed, damaged, consuming harmful addicting distances such as alcohol, etc.

The lack of sexual education before sexual encounters is a real issue, not really with porn.

it would obviously be a good idea to stop children from viewing porn

I don't think most children really care about porn before puberty. So, I don't think it's really an issue.

PS: Most of the reasons to block porn also apply to adults. Why not block it from everyone?

I don't think most children really care about porn before puberty. So, I don't think it's really an issue.

I'm going to guess that you don't remember much of your pre-puberty childhood. I remember quite a bit from mine (1976-1985), including what the other kids talked about. Porn, and sex in general, were definitely topics we had strong interest in. But without internet access, our options were pretty limited.

PS: Most of the reasons to block porn also apply to adults. Why not block it from everyone?

It's not that anti-porn people think porn isn't harmful to adults. Most of them do. They just think protecting adults from porn is out of reach, while protecting kids from porn isn't.

Sensible supervision is definitely the best way. When friends have asked for the best way to stop their kids looking at nefarious things on the Internet, my answer is usually to put computers in a communal room and not to give the kids smartphones until they're grown up enough.

I'm not sure how many kids pre-puberty are looking for porn - I know until a certain age I had absolutely no interest whatsoever. And for kids that are old enough to be curious about porn - you could probably argue that social networks and SMS and whatever else are just as dangerous.

I think the issue is that you can sometimes stumble on quite hardcore porn without actually looking for it. I've used plenty of non porn sites that have had porn as advertising.

The issue is at what point have the "grown up enough". The law says that porn is only for those > 18 but good look persuading a 16 year old that they aren't allowed a smartphone.

Best way to protect them is to let them the choice.

No it isn't. S/He said "primary school age children" and some kind of parental supervision is definitely necessary here. You can't give young children a choice in many areas - including food for example - as they don't have the skills, experiences and capacity to make an informed choice.

Regarding the automatic blocking of porn, I agree that this shouldn't happen, but when it comes to children I believe that good parenting is one of the parents being selective until the child is grown up enough to make their own decisions

Opt-in government maintained filters, like as an optional service?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com