[blackeyeblitzar]

I don’t get the recent moral fight against adult content. Not just in terms of illustrations or graphical novels as described here, but also other recent developments like identity verification laws for porn, or laws against AI-generated content (like deepfakes). We all have imaginations. People fantasize about their partner, or celebrities, or someone they are interested in. It’s normal. It’s just thought and expression. So what is wrong with people sharing their real (pornographic) or fake (digital) version of all this? On deepfakes or generative content, I can see it being misleading or defamatory perhaps, but if it is explicitly marked as content that is not real, is it really a bad thing or a problem? I feel like it’s just someone’s thoughts but in shareable form. What makes it different from artistic expression or satire, really? Isn’t ALL of this just the same old moralistic outrage?

One interesting part of this article is where it mentions the Miller Test, and it links to this page about US laws on obscenity - which to me mostly seem to be violations of constitutional rights on free speech and expression:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guid...

[kelipso]

There's been wider awareness of how pornography is harmful to boys especially, and also to men. The drive to restrict pornography from children and relegation of pornography to seedier parts of the internet makes complete sense as a response to this.

[kaycey2022]

It’s unfortunate you are being downvoted. Porn is very harmful indeed. I can’t think of any benefit in it being normalised. Maybe the defence of porn is motivated by the fact that other violent forms of expression have already been normalised. But I don’t see how that takes away from the dangers, access to porn presents for significant numbers of young men.

People who express themselves through the creation of panoramic material can find their efforts using crypto anyway.

[0dayz]

You don't provide any arguments but just grand stand and expect people to magically align with you.

[cpthammer]

Studies purporting the harms of porn do not replicate, do not hold up to meta analysis, are not validated by ANY real world outcomes (sexual violence, teen pregnancies, etc. are all down, not up, in countries with access to porn) and are propped up by the religions puritans and radical feminists responsible for this renewed worldwide chilling of sexual expression.

Media effects broadly do not exist. The printing press did not cause any of its purported harms, nor did rock and roll, nor MTV. And whatever the next big thing is (VR?) will suffer the same baseless accusations supported by nothing but ideologically-driven cargo cult science.

[kelipso]

I think the defense of porn is motivated by the fact that they are porn addicts lol.

[kaycey2022]

I didn't want to go there lol