5 ms·

Search engines find lots of things, including misinformation. Also, people can read a source and misunderstand it, or ignore the parts that are inconvenient for

Search engines find lots of things, including misinformation. Also, people can read a source and misunderstand it, or ignore the parts that are inconvenient for them. That's why links to specific pages are useful. For example, let's look at the second link... The study itself explicitly mentions that correlation is not causation. For example, erectile dysfunction correlate with long-term porn use. Okay, but does it prove that watching porn ruins your erection? Or is it perhaps the other way round, that men with erectile dysfunction have more difficulty finding sex partners or perhaps find sex less enjoyable, and therefore spend more time watching porn? (If you just assume that correlation = bad effect, let me tell you a shocking fact: use of chemotherapy is correlated with having cancer. Perhaps we should also ban chemotherapy. /s) Furthermore, some of the effects are arguably good: "pornography use may reduce risky sexual behaviors", "women involved in long-term relationships that use pornography more frequently may reveal increased sexual desire towards their partners", "shared viewing of pornography in heterosexual couples correlates with increase of sexual satisfaction".

Test0129 4y ago
> Search engines find lots of things, including misinformation You say this like the only people peddling this alleged "misinformation" (which is quickly losing it meaning, anyway) are bible thumping pastors who somehow can afford an army to do so. In 2001 the porn industry was worth billions [1]. It is not an insane stretch to assume this has tripled, quadrupled, or more with the rise of the modern internet. If we include onlyfans it is likely in the multiple hundreds of billions now. Porn producers can actually afford to peddle such "misinformation" much easier. They do. Often. But to play your game one of the most oft-cited reasons porn is bad is exploitation [2]. The alleged "women-freeing" quality of porn is actually a dramatic negative. Most, if not all, porn actresses are exploited in some form. The recent GirlsDoPorn case that made the news is just one example of thousands. Famous porn star Ron Jeremy turns out to be a serial rapist. We can fermi estimate how much evil is in this industry relatively easily. Perhaps that will fit into your delicate definition of "bad". Porn addiction is a problem as well [3]. It is a form of hyper-sexuality disorder made worse by anonymity. There are support groups all over these days to handle it. Would these crop up if there wasn't an actual underlying problem? Do you also claim a new drug can't be bad if there's no studies easily "searchable" to prove your point? Sometimes all you need is a few examples and your gut. Recall not even 50 years ago cigarettes were touted as a way to lose weight! I'm sure all those chain smokers would've called people saying it's addictive "misinformation peddlers" if they had such a contrived word to describe a curious correlation. I find it insane that your post is so common here on HN. Instead of actually providing counter-evidence you dismiss whatever you don't like as "misinformation" and fabricate your own reality to accept so you don't have to be uncomfortable. There are now 6 links worth of evidence to your 0. [1] https://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html?sh=34e6d1727984 https://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html?sh=34e6d1727... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/why-are-people-silent-about-the-abuses-and-exploitation-in-porn https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/why-ar... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  > Instead of actually providing counter-evidence you dismiss whatever you don't like as "misinformation" What I actually did was reading an article you linked in your previous comment, and quoting parts of it. Is it my fault that it contained information you did not like?
  - Test0129 4y ago
    My previous comment? Check the username.
kerp88 4y ago
Not really sure what your response has to do with the previous chain. someone asked for evidence related to the harm of porn that was not associated with religious sources, and I provided it. My snarky remark was simply to point out the commenters willful ignorance on the subject (ie requiring others to provide easily accessible pieces of information). What I did not do is say that this is conclusive evidence or that it must be interpreted a certain way.

Test0129 4y ago

> Search engines find lots of things, including misinformation You say this like the only people peddling this alleged "misinformation" (which is quickly losing it meaning, anyway) are bible thumping pastors who somehow can afford an army to do so. In 2001 the porn industry was worth billions [1]. It is not an insane stretch to assume this has tripled, quadrupled, or more with the rise of the modern internet. If we include onlyfans it is likely in the multiple hundreds of billions now. Porn producers can actually afford to peddle such "misinformation" much easier. They do. Often. But to play your game one of the most oft-cited reasons porn is bad is exploitation [2]. The alleged "women-freeing" quality of porn is actually a dramatic negative. Most, if not all, porn actresses are exploited in some form. The recent GirlsDoPorn case that made the news is just one example of thousands. Famous porn star Ron Jeremy turns out to be a serial rapist. We can fermi estimate how much evil is in this industry relatively easily. Perhaps that will fit into your delicate definition of "bad". Porn addiction is a problem as well [3]. It is a form of hyper-sexuality disorder made worse by anonymity. There are support groups all over these days to handle it. Would these crop up if there wasn't an actual underlying problem? Do you also claim a new drug can't be bad if there's no studies easily "searchable" to prove your point? Sometimes all you need is a few examples and your gut. Recall not even 50 years ago cigarettes were touted as a way to lose weight! I'm sure all those chain smokers would've called people saying it's addictive "misinformation peddlers" if they had such a contrived word to describe a curious correlation. I find it insane that your post is so common here on HN. Instead of actually providing counter-evidence you dismiss whatever you don't like as "misinformation" and fabricate your own reality to accept so you don't have to be uncomfortable. There are now 6 links worth of evidence to your 0. [1] https://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html?sh=34e6d1727984 https://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html?sh=34e6d1727... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/why-are-people-silent-about-the-abuses-and-exploitation-in-porn https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/why-ar... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/

Viliam1234 4y ago
> Instead of actually providing counter-evidence you dismiss whatever you don't like as "misinformation" What I actually did was reading an article you linked in your previous comment, and quoting parts of it. Is it my fault that it contained information you did not like?
- Test0129 4y ago
  My previous comment? Check the username.

kerp88 4y ago

Not really sure what your response has to do with the previous chain. someone asked for evidence related to the harm of porn that was not associated with religious sources, and I provided it. My snarky remark was simply to point out the commenters willful ignorance on the subject (ie requiring others to provide easily accessible pieces of information). What I did not do is say that this is conclusive evidence or that it must be interpreted a certain way.