Live data from Hacker News

X has new rules that officially allow porn

theverge.com

101–110 of 147 posts

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering most of the world views it and society is fine, I think I can posit the contrary. And think of all those hippies from the 70s that would have sex parties in the park. They're all grown up now. Don't see them running around raping and murdering. Might run into them at the swinger club though :)

Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc. Ofcourse, correlation does not imply causation. But personally I do think pornography contributes to some of the above in some ways.

Could people be spending more time single due to spending more time inside on the internet rather than a stronger causative effect of porn consumption.

Out of cohorts that consume no porn, to what degree are those variables you cited different? If those cohorts are introduced to porn, do those numbers change? In those cohorts, is there full honesty about usage? It's very difficult science to fo.

There are studies that show porn use particularly in women will lead to higher divorce rates [1] though, it is noted the relationship is curvilinear, as porn use goes to a high level, the effect of separation decreases. Are people unhappy in marriage seaking out porn, or is porn causing the unhappy marriage? Are people who are likely to be divorced later more likely to seek out porn? Correlation and causation are incredibly hard to tease out. Is it the porn's fault? Who knows, in some specefic cases - probably, but generally speaking it is not supported by data. If supported by data, to get that causation claim, then a dose and effect relationship needs to be identified as well as a clearly articulated mechanism of action.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28936726/

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can you provide citations/links and references? Though, I'm afraid this will be hard to quantify for you. You will also need to satisfy the burden of proof that those links/citations are prevalent ideas and constitute a representative sample of more than just a few individuals. What's more though, such a representative sample only just informs us about the population of HN commentators. I don't think that is a partic…

LOL

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#103
post #89
post #2

So, are states like Texas, which need age verification, gonna ask for it for X too? This could get pretty wild considering the whole bot situation and the way Red States are handling adult content these days...

> So, are states like Texas, which need age verification, gonna ask for it for X too? I believe that the Texas law applies to sites where more than 1/3 of their content is sexual material harmful to minors. I don't know exactly how it defines "sexual material" and "harmful to minors", but I suspect that Twitter does not qualify as such a site.

For Texas just have 2 gun pics per porn pic ... then you're OK.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that general dating is skewed against men, but also against older women; just watch that one of 14 year old boys. It is a minor miracle if you date at 14 years old. Just about everything is stacked against you. As a 39 years old I believe that this experience has irrepairably damaged my expectation of interactions. It's completely OK if you're content with not having any romantic life at 14! But what if…

> just watch that one of 14 year old boys. If you're in a mixed gender school, you're basically in a building with hundred of potential candidates. > It is a minor miracle if you date at 14 years old. Just about everything is stacked against you I disagree. Your only competition is other 14-16(hopefully not higher) year olds, none of whom have careers! > It's completely OK if you're content with not having any romant…

Most of 14-15 years old girls are not romantically active as it seems, and when they are, they would overwhelmingly prefer older boys (with the 2 years rule et al). As a 14 years old boy you're not really going to date 12 years old girls obviously. 16 years old girls may date anyone from 14 to 35. Some of them are not romantically active and ones who are, will overwhelmingly prefer older boys and young men. That would explain the extreme opportunity squeeze that I was describing. It's the same issue with 35 years old women with their peer 35 years old men who now have jobs and a car and now may easily date those 20-24 years old girls they were previously not getting. Except more severe because 35 years old women have resources and choices that young boys don't. They also have the experience of being in demand in the past.

Apologies, but I was reading that you are claiming that dating at 14 years old damages your future prospects. Perhaps I couldn't parse.

I'm just at loss why you don't list the negatives of NOT watching pornography, such as feeling lonely, worthless and desperate, not having any meaning to your life, and not having any way to divert these thoughts. I would attribute erectile dysfunction and pre-mature ejaculation to not being in any romantic demand for multiple formative years leading to major distortion of your self-esteem and therefore to fear of rejection and extreme anxiety of not performing. Which then becomes self-fulfilling prophercy and learned helplessness. Not to mention the "false expectation" of always being turned down by any potential mate in your life. And not to porn.

People who watched little porn probably didn't really need to be romantically active so they just skipped the whole rack torture experience and that's why they perform better later on, when opportunity presents and they do not have that burden.

Fortunately I don't need extra money so kidneys stay.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be drawing a false equivalence. Left wing solutions to things like porn, gambling, drugs, sex work, abortion - is to regulate them so that they are "safe" (harm-reduced) & then find ways to reduce those activities in first place & provide support for people to get out of those activities. Left wing considers these as social problems - not legal. In contrast, right wing views these as problems to be…

I'm mainly going off of the story of how IIRC a couple of years ago, PH was forced to wipe most of their site due to left-wing activists pressuring payment processors into threatening to block PH's basic means of doing business if they didn't meet the somewhat absurd demand of filtering out all harmful/unethical material. Sure, they technically didn't use the legal system, they just used the technicality that payment…

Looks like a NY Times article detailed they were hosting awful stuff. They then implemented a verification system. Not sure about the activists.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55304115

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#106
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc. Ofcourse, correlation does not imply causation. But personally I do think pornography contributes to some of the above in some ways.

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-release... Why are we limiting this to western countries? This is clearly a problem with (checks list) Bhutan, Maldives, Puerto Rico, Nepal, South Korea, Saint Lucia, Taiwan, Carbo Verde, Djibouti, and Bosnia. I'm missing the list of "most western countries" there in the most critical ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility#Caus... Is the redu…

There are other factors contributing to it, absolutely. I'm not disputing that.

What do you think are the main factors for highest % of men not being sexually active (compared to historically), highest % of people living alone (in US).

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc. Ofcourse, correlation does not imply causation. But personally I do think pornography contributes to some of the above in some ways.

> Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Are those bad things? I think it is great for the population to shrink a bit for environmental reasons. It's not like humanity will go extinct tomorrow. We have way too many people on this planet competing for scarce resources already. And that's with more and more poor countries rising in welf…

Yes, those are bad, horrible things. It's why a lot of governments are trying to incentivize them to go up.

> It's just that we have more freedom

Partially, yes, explains no kids/somewhat divorce rates, but does not explain men not being sexually active, as every man (that's not asexual) wants to bone. And irregardless of marriage, more people are single/not in a relationship.

> . I don't think this is due to porn but rather due to a more relaxed attitude to sexuality, which I consider a really good thing. These things can strengthen bonds as well

I disagree. Studies show that those that have more sexual partners are more likely to divorce [1]. Personally, and that's just personally, I could never have the love of my life fuck another man.

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a world we live in that allowing NSFW content is seen as desperation, while monetisation through ads isn’t.

It seems desperate because, for example, KSA is the second largest investor in X. Porn is illegal in KSA. So this is going to get a bit awkward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_Middle_East

How would that matter to their investment fund? Like Twitter doesn't host undesirable things towards the middle east and religions and everything else.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, birth rates are below replacement rates in most western countries where pornography is consumed more than elsewhere. Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc. Ofcourse, correlation does not imply causation. But personally I do think pornography contributes to some of the above in some ways.

Could people be spending more time single due to spending more time inside on the internet rather than a stronger causative effect of porn consumption. Out of cohorts that consume no porn, to what degree are those variables you cited different? If those cohorts are introduced to porn, do those numbers change? In those cohorts, is there full honesty about usage? It's very difficult science to fo. There are studies tha…

True, it's very difficult to attribute the reasons for big social movements, so I am doing some speculating. I do agree that internet contributes as well. My belief that it is a mix of reasons, and pornography is one of them, as it gives complacency. Just rub one out instead of making an effort on meeting potential partners & improving yourself to make yourself suitable.

Interesting study. I agree that it's very difficult to find the causation.

Re: X has new rules that officially allow porn

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just watch that one of 14 year old boys. If you're in a mixed gender school, you're basically in a building with hundred of potential candidates. > It is a minor miracle if you date at 14 years old. Just about everything is stacked against you I disagree. Your only competition is other 14-16(hopefully not higher) year olds, none of whom have careers! > It's completely OK if you're content with not having any romant…

> If you're in a mixed gender school, you're basically in a building with hundred of potential candidates. And if you are in a professional sports venue during a scheduled professional sporting event you are basically in a building with hundreds of thousands of potential athletes. > Your only competition is other 14-16(hopefully not higher) year olds, none of whom have careers! None of them? I had my career at 14. St…

> And if you are in a professional sports venue during a scheduled professional sporting event you are basically in a building with hundreds of thousands of potential athletes.

That does not hold, as they are there to watch. More accurate comparison would be, if you are into tech, going to a tech conference, you are in a building with hundreds/thousands of potential employees, employers, partners, etc.

> None of them? I had my career at 14. Still at it many decades later.

Well done, but you are an exception. "none" is not meant literally. i.e humans have 5 fingers. Yes, some have 6, but for the most part, we have 5.

> The romantic interests involved can easily choose to not get involved with anyone.

In your school, were there no relationships?

Post reply on HN