4 ms·

I want to see the detailed metastudies that clearly suggest exposure to internet porn does significant damage to kids. I also want to know why this has to be e

I want to see the detailed metastudies that clearly suggest exposure to internet porn does significant damage to kids. I also want to know why this has to be enforced by the nanny state, rather than provided for by already available software? Do the parents have no responsibility? Actually, since this government likes to full-on lie about evidence [0] let's just wait until we have a chance to throw these demagogue idiots out. [0]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/15/conservative-claims-about-benefits-not-spin http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/15/conserva...

TomGullen 13y ago
Me to. Especially because Cameron U-turned on minimum alcohol pricing last week due to "lack of concrete evidence"
whyleyc 13y ago
Well, here's a link [0] to a recent report by the Children's commissioner for England which found: - Access and exposure to pornography affect children and young people’s sexual beliefs - Access and exposure to pornography are linked to children and young people’s engagement in “risky behaviours” - Exposure to sexualised and violent imagery led to violent attitudes [0]: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_681 http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications...
- mattstocum 13y ago
  And we know it's the sexualized imagery and not the violent imagery that led to violent attitudes.
- singular 13y ago
  I'm no expert, but that seems to be a report by a probably biased organisation, rather than a scientific metastudy looking at sufficient sample sizes and eliminating confounding factors. Please correct me if the report is of equivalent quality. I'd be amazed if there was actual evidence that violence in the media actually contributed to real world violence even in children, as I thought this had already been covered at length with the various computer game scares.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    Why didn't you just read the report instead of jumping to conclusions? In fact the evidence portion of this is based off over 100 different sources and appears to have been produced by 3 universities.
    - singular 13y ago
      It seems like you didn't read my comment... > Please correct me if the report is of equivalent quality. Like I said, I'm no expert, so even if I had time to read the report (I don't) it isn't a scientific metastudy. It's a report, by a quite possibly (probably) biased organisation. So unless I had some special knowledge about the area (I don't) or time to review it in detail (nope) I don't know whether to trust it or not vs. a scentific metastudy. A weary aside (I am not interested in arguing on the internet cf. http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/) Your rudeness is totally uncalled for. If you excise that rude first sentence your post loses no value (in fact gains some.) I have a healthy skepticism when it comes to politically useful 'facts' like these and thus don't take government-commissioned reports even with many citations on face value. That doesn't deserve condescension.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        When someone says "why don't you read XXX instead of jumping to conclusions", and it turns out you not only haven't read XXX but refuse to, the claim that their statement is rude becomes a little hollow.
        anon1385 13y ago
        He pointed out that the study did not appear to be a peer reviewed scientific study, and asked if this was really the case. He was told to read it himself, but reading the report yourself doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the review/publishing process for the report. (Of course since it's not in a scientific journal the chance it received peer review is pretty low.) Telling somebody to read something themselves may or may not be rude, but it certainly wasn't an answer to the question. I know everybody on HN likes to think they are an expert in everything, but reading 'reports' by think tanks or other political institutions, even ones that cite scientific studies, is a good way to confirm your own biases, but not a necessarily a good way to educate yourself about contentious issues. If you are not familiar with the area of research you won't know what has been missed or ignored or proven unrepeatable or flawed. A peer reviewed meta-study would be much more likely to include the full cross section of available research.
oneandoneis2 13y ago
I'd like to see said studies compare the damage done by exposure to porn to the damage done by exposure to sex-shaming religions. Such as the official state religion of the UK, Christianity. If porn has to be banned because it damages kids, why does religion get a free pass? http://sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/sex-skeptics-say-whos-in-charge-here-anyway/ http://sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/sex-skept...

TomGullen 13y ago

Me to. Especially because Cameron U-turned on minimum alcohol pricing last week due to "lack of concrete evidence"

whyleyc 13y ago

Well, here's a link [0] to a recent report by the Children's commissioner for England which found: - Access and exposure to pornography affect children and young people’s sexual beliefs - Access and exposure to pornography are linked to children and young people’s engagement in “risky behaviours” - Exposure to sexualised and violent imagery led to violent attitudes [0]: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_681 http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications...

mattstocum 13y ago
And we know it's the sexualized imagery and not the violent imagery that led to violent attitudes.
singular 13y ago
I'm no expert, but that seems to be a report by a probably biased organisation, rather than a scientific metastudy looking at sufficient sample sizes and eliminating confounding factors. Please correct me if the report is of equivalent quality. I'd be amazed if there was actual evidence that violence in the media actually contributed to real world violence even in children, as I thought this had already been covered at length with the various computer game scares.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  Why didn't you just read the report instead of jumping to conclusions? In fact the evidence portion of this is based off over 100 different sources and appears to have been produced by 3 universities.
  - singular 13y ago
    It seems like you didn't read my comment... > Please correct me if the report is of equivalent quality. Like I said, I'm no expert, so even if I had time to read the report (I don't) it isn't a scientific metastudy. It's a report, by a quite possibly (probably) biased organisation. So unless I had some special knowledge about the area (I don't) or time to review it in detail (nope) I don't know whether to trust it or not vs. a scentific metastudy. A weary aside (I am not interested in arguing on the internet cf. http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/) Your rudeness is totally uncalled for. If you excise that rude first sentence your post loses no value (in fact gains some.) I have a healthy skepticism when it comes to politically useful 'facts' like these and thus don't take government-commissioned reports even with many citations on face value. That doesn't deserve condescension.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      When someone says "why don't you read XXX instead of jumping to conclusions", and it turns out you not only haven't read XXX but refuse to, the claim that their statement is rude becomes a little hollow.
      - anon1385 13y ago
        He pointed out that the study did not appear to be a peer reviewed scientific study, and asked if this was really the case. He was told to read it himself, but reading the report yourself doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the review/publishing process for the report. (Of course since it's not in a scientific journal the chance it received peer review is pretty low.) Telling somebody to read something themselves may or may not be rude, but it certainly wasn't an answer to the question. I know everybody on HN likes to think they are an expert in everything, but reading 'reports' by think tanks or other political institutions, even ones that cite scientific studies, is a good way to confirm your own biases, but not a necessarily a good way to educate yourself about contentious issues. If you are not familiar with the area of research you won't know what has been missed or ignored or proven unrepeatable or flawed. A peer reviewed meta-study would be much more likely to include the full cross section of available research.

oneandoneis2 13y ago

I'd like to see said studies compare the damage done by exposure to porn to the damage done by exposure to sex-shaming religions. Such as the official state religion of the UK, Christianity. If porn has to be banned because it damages kids, why does religion get a free pass? http://sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/sex-skeptics-say-whos-in-charge-here-anyway/ http://sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/sex-skept...