4 ms·

Ditto for online pornography. And unlike chemical drugs that have to be transported and administered, these images and videos fly through the wires into childre

Ditto for online pornography. And unlike chemical drugs that have to be transported and administered, these images and videos fly through the wires into childrens' bedrooms. I know, because like most children, I was exposed to online porn at a young age and was addicted to it well into my adult life. These companies need regulation, because they are bad actors.

Animats 5y ago
Ditto for online pornography. Nah. That's been studied heavily. Here's an overview from the National Institutes of Health.[1] Wikipedia has an overview.[2] The overall conclusion is that most of the research is of terrible quality and there's no big measurable effect. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography
- atonalfreerider 5y ago
  Here is strong evidence to the contrary from the NIH: >The proposed DSM-5, slated to publish in May of 2014, contains in this new addition the diagnosis of Hypersexual Disorder, which includes problematic, compulsive pornography use. Bostwick and Bucci, in their report out of the Mayo Clinic on treating Internet pornography addiction with naltrexone, wrote “…cellular adaptations in the (pornography) addict’s PFC result in increased salience of drug-associated stimuli, decreased salience of non-drug stimuli, and decreased interest in pursuing goal-directed activities central to survival.” Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/
  - Animats 5y ago
    That's from one case, and it's worth reading.[1] [1] https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)60846-X/fulltext https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)...
- passivate 5y ago
  You first claim that most of the research is terrible, then also claim that research shows 'no big measurable effect'. Can you clarify what you mean?
voidnullnil 5y ago
>[porn companies] need regulation No, nothing needs regulation. Stop making the internet fucking worse. Can we go back to 2000 now (not that it was good then either since the internet was fundamentally broken already)? This is like the bat shit insane morons who think having a popup about cookies on every page is solving the """privacy""" issue. Literally every single political issue on HN is bogus. Take the ad blocking issue for instance, nothing that has ads actually matters. Your "solutions" like Brave are pure garbage. The "privacy" issue doesn't exist because if we were using sane tech instead of webshit, there wouldn't be any tracking since it wouldn't be conceptually possible. Why the hell can tech even track you in the first place for reading static documents? This is a poor analog that cannot even compete with paper newspapers (which are also much more legible because they are not on LCDs). Net neutrality doesn't matter because nobody can ELI5 why I should care about it. Since the internet is all garbage, it shouldn't be an issue that it's expensive. Just don't use it. Make a free replacement. Cuban citizens have already done it. Now let me try and list CURRENT_YEAR.addictions: - Games - Working out - Porn - Social media - TV (youtube or whatever you use now) - HN (muh dunning kruger syndrome, imposter, et al) - Eating - Lotto tickets - Stock market - Programming - Working - Drugs - Things that are sort of drugs but not - Any substance what so ever - Benchmarking - Politics - Literally any hobby Oh look guys, HN needs to be regulated because I can come up with a person who has problems because of it. Guys we need to regulate fat and high calorie food. Oh wait it grows on trees. People who see a problem and immediately go "we need regulation to solve this" (and even proceed to come up with some ad-hoc hypothesis of how it solves the problem after it's proven that it doesn't solve it in a substantial way) are morons. There is actually something wrong with their brain. They hold back progress. Every new law is a potential stumbling block for progress and thus why new legislation should be avoided at all costs. See MECHANISM NOT POLICY article on wikipedia to see how people already knew about this 70 years ago in tech.
- atonalfreerider 5y ago
  > nothing needs regulation This is a hyperbolic statement. Even if you are just talking about internet regulation. Let's imagine for a moment that someone invented a hypnosis algorithm and hosted it on a website. Anyone going to this website went into spasms and died in front of their screen. Would we seek protection for our children and for the general public from such a website from internet browser companies, ISPs and the government? Yes we would. This is an extreme example but it illustrates a point. You can say the same thing about websites that prey on children, or the elderly. I'm not advocating for the banning of pornography altogether. I am making the simple proposition that it be better regulated. People who distribute porn know full well that their content is seen by minors. Having a child check a box that says that they are over 18 is not good enough. If I hadn't seen porn as a minor, I might have had a better chance of avoiding the extremely negative impacts that it can carry with it. Don't believe me? Visit a support page like r/NoFap and read the hundreds of thousands of stories there. I'm not going to touch any of the other subjects you raised because I'm not arguing for any of the things you listed.

Animats 5y ago

Ditto for online pornography. Nah. That's been studied heavily. Here's an overview from the National Institutes of Health.[1] Wikipedia has an overview.[2] The overall conclusion is that most of the research is of terrible quality and there's no big measurable effect. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography

atonalfreerider 5y ago
Here is strong evidence to the contrary from the NIH: >The proposed DSM-5, slated to publish in May of 2014, contains in this new addition the diagnosis of Hypersexual Disorder, which includes problematic, compulsive pornography use. Bostwick and Bucci, in their report out of the Mayo Clinic on treating Internet pornography addiction with naltrexone, wrote “…cellular adaptations in the (pornography) addict’s PFC result in increased salience of drug-associated stimuli, decreased salience of non-drug stimuli, and decreased interest in pursuing goal-directed activities central to survival.” Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/
- Animats 5y ago
  That's from one case, and it's worth reading.[1] [1] https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)60846-X/fulltext https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)...
passivate 5y ago
You first claim that most of the research is terrible, then also claim that research shows 'no big measurable effect'. Can you clarify what you mean?

voidnullnil 5y ago

>[porn companies] need regulation No, nothing needs regulation. Stop making the internet fucking worse. Can we go back to 2000 now (not that it was good then either since the internet was fundamentally broken already)? This is like the bat shit insane morons who think having a popup about cookies on every page is solving the """privacy""" issue. Literally every single political issue on HN is bogus. Take the ad blocking issue for instance, nothing that has ads actually matters. Your "solutions" like Brave are pure garbage. The "privacy" issue doesn't exist because if we were using sane tech instead of webshit, there wouldn't be any tracking since it wouldn't be conceptually possible. Why the hell can tech even track you in the first place for reading static documents? This is a poor analog that cannot even compete with paper newspapers (which are also much more legible because they are not on LCDs). Net neutrality doesn't matter because nobody can ELI5 why I should care about it. Since the internet is all garbage, it shouldn't be an issue that it's expensive. Just don't use it. Make a free replacement. Cuban citizens have already done it. Now let me try and list CURRENT_YEAR.addictions: - Games - Working out - Porn - Social media - TV (youtube or whatever you use now) - HN (muh dunning kruger syndrome, imposter, et al) - Eating - Lotto tickets - Stock market - Programming - Working - Drugs - Things that are sort of drugs but not - Any substance what so ever - Benchmarking - Politics - Literally any hobby Oh look guys, HN needs to be regulated because I can come up with a person who has problems because of it. Guys we need to regulate fat and high calorie food. Oh wait it grows on trees. People who see a problem and immediately go "we need regulation to solve this" (and even proceed to come up with some ad-hoc hypothesis of how it solves the problem after it's proven that it doesn't solve it in a substantial way) are morons. There is actually something wrong with their brain. They hold back progress. Every new law is a potential stumbling block for progress and thus why new legislation should be avoided at all costs. See MECHANISM NOT POLICY article on wikipedia to see how people already knew about this 70 years ago in tech.

atonalfreerider 5y ago
> nothing needs regulation This is a hyperbolic statement. Even if you are just talking about internet regulation. Let's imagine for a moment that someone invented a hypnosis algorithm and hosted it on a website. Anyone going to this website went into spasms and died in front of their screen. Would we seek protection for our children and for the general public from such a website from internet browser companies, ISPs and the government? Yes we would. This is an extreme example but it illustrates a point. You can say the same thing about websites that prey on children, or the elderly. I'm not advocating for the banning of pornography altogether. I am making the simple proposition that it be better regulated. People who distribute porn know full well that their content is seen by minors. Having a child check a box that says that they are over 18 is not good enough. If I hadn't seen porn as a minor, I might have had a better chance of avoiding the extremely negative impacts that it can carry with it. Don't believe me? Visit a support page like r/NoFap and read the hundreds of thousands of stories there. I'm not going to touch any of the other subjects you raised because I'm not arguing for any of the things you listed.