[qwerty456127]

I don't believe children need to be guarded from porn and can be seriously harmed by it but if we assume they do - why not just disallow children to use devices and apps made for adults? Why not just give kids locked-down phones with special pre-installed apps and leave the normal devices and normal web the way they are?

[iteria]

I don't believe that _teens_ can be harmed bu porn because they have some understanding of cultural norms. Kids, though, absolutely. Porn as it exists can teach a person who doesn't understand such basics as "hitting people just because you're mad is wrong" that having sex with an adult (aka pedophile) it perfectly okay. Engaging in sex with family members is okay. If you get hurt, that's expected and honestly you should like it.

Not all porn is like this, but a shocking amount it. I wouldn't want someone who is learning what is acceptable and normal to come across this.

It's already a problem for preteens and teens who consume too much and enter into relationships with unrealistic and sometimes dangerous ideas. Unlike violence, sex is private and privately talked about so kids will not receive correction when they misunderstand.

[tete]

> I wouldn't want someone who is learning what is acceptable and normal to come across this.

I think that is a very very long stretch.

We live in a world where ads - also ads specifically targeting children - give wrong impressions of what's acceptable, "normal" and reasonable. We see huge effects of this.

Meanwhile we are in a society where romantic movies with sudden kisses are bordering on "rape" because there wasn't any verbal clear consent.

All while we live in a society where most people had relatively easy access to porn online and offline and that by today's standards was incredibly sexist only a few years ago.

I really think that if you have a child young enough to not understand that is not okay and at the same time looks at porn out of their own free will you have a serious problem in first place.

The whole "sex is something secret and forbidden" does a lot more harm and can also be seen by both perpetrators and victims.

It's also why schools start earlier and earlier about those things. Before there would be first contact with pornography even if there were zero measures and no parenting.

The idea that young children just happen to come across these things and not instantly close or even watch them, and draw morale conclusions from them if there wasn't any age verification is ridiculous.

But even if it wasn't, if parenting is that bad the expectation shouldn't be that this is the one thing that protects them from pornography. Because then it might as well run all day off a DVD or something.

I really dislike the whole "Let's think of the most ridiculous specific scenarios to justify laws" to then say "And if only one child can be saved", when we as a society seem to be arguing about whether it is morally okay to take a dime from a company to guarantee for proper healthcare for children - and parents so they actually can do a good job. And when we don't look at stuff marketed to children. We have Pokemon being a children's version of cockfights and that is evidently okay. We have dozens of fast food chains normalizing living off fat and sugar. We buy children toy guns and show them shows where they learn it's about being the strongest.

We have a mental health pandemic. We teach children that the right thing to do with your life is working for a soulless company at a bullshit job to then get shitfaced in a bar. The stuff that lets suicides skyrocket.

At the same time we are worried that children see two consenting adults having sex.

I think at this point that's "normal", but I really don't think it should be.

Totally willing to change my opinion if anyone can come up with perpetrators or victims become that by having seen porn, and then show it makes sense to do age verification here but not for James Bond, Superhero Movies or McDonalds ads.