Porn sites Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat face stricter requirements to verify the ages of their users after being officially designated as “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs) under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA).
I personally have mixed feelings, as the information collection could be used to link individuals and profile them. Possibly leading to discrimination if abused.
But I also feel that any random kid shouldn’t be able to just go to these sites and see porn freely.
Ofc, there’s always going to be those who mange to circumvent any protection put in place but it’d be much harder then just clicking a link or typing in the address.
I also feel that parents should actively monitor their kids online activities and step up a Blocklist to pro-actively prevent kids from reaching these sites to begin with.
What are your thoughts on this?
Might be a stupid question but is there any peer reviewed research that shows that porn is harmful to minors? Early humans didn’t have clothes so minors were seeing nudity for centuries. Of course, there’s the issue that porn gives men unrealistic expectations about women & sex, but that’s an issue regardless of age.
Early human minors (until a century or two ago) used to have sex, engage in hebephilia and pedophilia, and underage teenage girls used to be mothers. This is how we still have grandmothers today who married and had kids before the age of 18. So yes, your question is wild and scientifically ignorant. Porn has always been harmful to minors, and in fact, specifically more to minors or anyone under the age of ~25, because that is when neural connections stop forming and adjusting. The neural linking and development starts to slow down by the age of 15. That makes underage minors even more vulnerable, as they hit puberty, have raging hormones and are also at risk of sexual abuse.
I don’t understand… your first couple sentences support my argument with evidence but then you say I’m wildly ignorant? Simply saying “their brains are still developing” and nothing else is a classic “protect the children” platitude
I am not supporting your argument, but only provided a pretext to the reasoning. Biochemistry of humans being used as objective reason is not a “classic” whatever politics you choose to engage in. Privacy will always be secondary to protecting the future generations, and no kind of freedom is going to be tolerated by society for something as pathetic as pornographic pleasures. Privacy may fundamentally be important, but there are a lot of things higher on the priority list, like freedom, mental sanity, health, societal prosperity and other things.