[delusional]

> of course, legacy sources are not affected - incidentally, they're probably more harmful than the prohibited sources

What a silly idea. The modern world was built while traditional media existed. The decay and backsliding conicides with modern day social media. How does that point to traditional media being the culprit?

[nomilk]

In the extremes, both ideas are right. In terms of timeliness, relevance, quality, rigour, variety, discussion and debate the worst content on social media is orders of magnitude worse than the worst content on mainstream media.

But the inverse is also true: the best content on social media is orders of magnitude better than the best content on mainstream media.

An individual should be able to choose what works for them, not have the government disallow swaths of sources.

[Telemakhos]

I don’t understand what “traditional media” means in this context. Before the internet, kids didn’t have access to porn. It just wasn’t there when I was growing up. I’m sure someone out there had 8mm or 16mm porn films, but I as a child had no clue where to find those, and the physical stores selling them were not accessible: I didn’t have transportation to them, and they checked ID at the door. I heard of Playboy through friends at school, but I had zero access to it myself. I don’t think that was unusual.

Today every eight year old can browse Motherless for free with the same tablet he uses to watch whatever slop it is parents let their kids watch instead of educating them. That’s not a difference between “legacy” and “modern” porn but between zero access and full access.

[delusional]

The parent comment was talking about the other meaning of "media", the "news media". "Traditional media" then means newspapers, radio, and TV. As opposed to "new media" which is idiots yelling at each other on twitter or whatever.