This could be a fascinating development to watch actually. Made much more interesting too by the fact that Elon has a lot of business in states like Texas and Florida. X is also increasingly viewed as a "right wing"[1] place, which might make states like Texas a lot more sympathetic to their "free speech" position because they won't feel like it's a "left wing" tactic to poison minds.
[1]: I'm not saying it is a right wing place, I have no idea as I have no data (not even anecdata because I don't really use it), but I've certainly noticed an uptick in people sharing that view on sites like HN since Elon took over. Have also heard that there is a decent balance of viewpoints on X. My guess is that both are probably true (and are not mutually exclusive), but again I have no data.
Are dedicated porn sites like PornHub and friends considered somehow left wing?
Or is it just that their NSFW freedom of speech isn't significant because it's not to the benefit of a billionaire that these politicians happen to like.
> Are dedicated porn sites like PornHub and friends considered somehow left wing?
Not directly no, but since the overlap between right-wing and religious (mostly Christian) are so significant, and many right-wing Christians believe that there is a spritual war going on and that porn is a sin/evil, and it can lead to atheism, and atheism is so frequently associated with left-wing, I think there's some consideration there.
> Or is it just that their NSFW freedom of speech isn't significant because it's not to the benefit of a billionaire that these politicians happen to like.
I'm sure that's a factor as well. No (or very, very few) politican of any ilk is going to stand up for Big Porn and risk becoming the porn candidate. Personally I'd sure love to see them at least stand up for Big Porn in the name of free speech, but I'm not expecting it anytime soon.
Dedicated sites have the issue of being targeted from all sides, right wing hates them for porn, left wing hates them for not being able to filter out exploitation, revenge porn etc and then they also have to fight payment processors who, for some ridiculous reason, are still allowed to screw with any business with zero accountability.
I think all those factors combine to make them have to be kind of politically neutral.
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 solved also with the legal system. Ban entirely and enforce with police and criminal sentences. Thus the "hates" I don't think is quite equal between the two.
I will concede for sure though that if you go far enough left the degree of 'hate' levels out between right & left, but the number of people on the two sides is different.
The "silent majority" part of the right wing, the old Reagan coalition for a long time was a pretty sizable part of the Republican party. Meanwhile, the twitter left progressive wing of the Democratic party is not as large compared to the republican religious-conservative right.
If we think to the OG far-left hatred of porn - that was there before revenge-porn etc were even concerns. Those OG left-wing concerns that did want to ban porn - were concerned about how porn disempowers women, can glorify violence, further genders inequality, etc..
As a general left/right difference, the approach is not equal. In the cases where the approach is to ban entirely - there are just different numbers of people in the far left "porn should be banned" camp compared to the "porn is sin" camp.
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 processors hold the same power over internet-dependent companies as a government.
In contrast, I would consider Charlie Kirk as a right-wing activist (hopefully this will work as a good example). If there were an action taken by him and similarly small group of activists, perhaps with backing from their organization - I would be very hesitant to extrapolate that action as broadly representative of "the right."
Which is to say, left wing or right wing activists might not be representative of the broader views, and also those broader views might not be consistent (not everyone on the right/left agree on everything)
Where do you see the group of people who are libertarian on the issue? In other words, people who think that the premise that drugs are immoral is flawed, and they should be regulated for safety, but society does not need to discourage their use and certainly does not need to ban them.
I see those people as on the moderately far left, at least in the United States. There are plenty of people on the moderately far left who are not libertarian in the vast majority of positions, but who would agree in the case of drugs.
> Where do you see the group of people who are libertarian on the issue?
The libertarian party platform states: "we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes" [1]
Which I interpret as full legalization of all drugs. It is interesting that this is essentially an extreme left point of view on the topic. I really think libertarian philosophy is just kinda fascinating. I'm now curious though on where libertarians stand on tort laws.
I think the arrow of causality is perhaps the other way. Recall the "moral majority", Jerry Fallwell, etc. It was a big right-leaning effort to ban porn starting in perhaps the 70s. Probably earlier. The republican party used to have religion as a big component, and immoral porn was a plank in that platform - the party of "family values." Somehow up until about 10 years ago, it was a 30+ year campaign by Republicans to reduce/ban porn. Remnants of this can still be seen in the republican party, eg: Mike Johnson extolling his use of "covenant eyes"
Thus the arrow is flipped. The anti-porn cause was very active against printed pornograpghy, efforts predating the internet.
Past research ([1]) has shown that Twitter disproportionately boosts right-wing political content. Qualitatively, you can find whatever you want there, but Elon Musk's personal connection with and admiration for a number of right-wing individuals makes them stand out. In particular, Twitter under Musk has a clear pattern of not applying its moderation policies to high-profile accounts; in the current year, it is right-wing politicians who most frequently post hateful or blatantly false information, so failing to hold them to a normal standard amounts to a tacit approval of what they're posting.
Interesting, thanks! It looks like that's going to take at least 30 minutes to read through, and probably much longer to really understand, so I'll have to bookmark it for later, but it sounds intriguing!
Please. More like the Internet (i.e., most of humanity) "disproportionately boosts right-wing political content". Before Elon, Twitter was an Orwellian algorithmic police state where everything right of Marx got shadowbanned and suppressed. (Like every other major social platform.)
> 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.
You joke, but depending on how the law is written, I could totally see content hosting companies implementing a system where, for every minute of new footage that gets uploaded, they automatically generate 2 minutes of a bald eagle flying across an American flag or something.
Are you sure about that? Is it a recent rule change? I know a person whose app got permanently denied because it had "adult content" in it. It's definitely possible that there is more nuance that I'm not aware of, or that they changed the rules
IIRC Discord gets around this by having a setting that needs to be enabled from another device/browser to be able to access NSFW servers on iOS. I think Pixiv (maybe Reddit too?) has something similar.
So I'm going to guess the workaround is that Apple requires NSFW content to not be accessible as a default, but does not get in the way for the content being accessible via some form of external switch. The 'external' requirement makes me think that maybe it's about shifting some sort of perceived liability? X might have to add a similar option I guess.
You just need a toggle to comply with the rules, so that the user decides what they’ll see. One example is Flickr. Another is Tumblr. They both have toggles for explicit content.
Well that's kinda tough now. A lot of companies still do their own comms on Twitter.
For the same reason we have spotify blocked at work, but not youtube because we publish our comms there. Which results in... people listening to music videos and wasting a ton of bandwidth for no reason (because they're downloading the video just for the music). A bit stupid but the powers that be are unwilling to unblock spotify.
But I don't think most people at the company care, they just want to listen and take whatever they know. I don't think most of them even know youtube music exists. Spotify is really popular here (Europe) but it's banned like I mentioned.
"can" - I'm personally very disappointed with YouTube music. The playlist/recommendations are even worse than what Youtube alone will give you AND you have to pay $15/month for it.
However, a reason to leave the rules unclarified is that parties who want to look the other way are able to. I don't think it'll make much of a difference in this case, though.
But it does change the whole feel of a site and make it not palatable to large swaths of users. Because it's one thing if you can say "I just won't follow porn accounts" – it's a whole other thing if the feed is also algorithmic. So now there's a non-zero chance that scrolling through will result in something pornographic? For the record, I have no issue with that type of content, but there's a sense of "time and place" and having it separated.
If not properly gated (via special accounts that can be filtered out, etc, or profiles that have ratings baked in), this can become a mess very quickly.
How would that matter to their investment fund? Like Twitter doesn't host undesirable things towards the middle east and religions and everything else.
Every Musk thread smacks of desperation since the histrionics on here the day he took over and fired all those indispensables.
The site will go down imminently! Traffic is cratering! Everyone I know have switched to mylittlepony tooting on mastodon!
I get it, you don’t like him, by all means. But stop manifesting reality.
Edit: awww you guys, sorry if I hurt your feelings. Twitter is down, tooting ftw! musk bad, I conform with all your pet issues and hatreds, please don’t shun me!
I don't recall anyone on here saying the site will just go down forever. The general consensus here was that there'd be more bugs/glitches and a general degradation in quality. This seems to have panned out
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 particularly interesting sub-population, very little (if anything) can be extrapolated other than: "there were a lot of comments on HN stating Y." Doesn't really mean much for me - to be blunt, nobody really cares what random groups of HN commentators think. It doesn't represent very much.
On the other hand, perhaps we can look at actual studies that use statistical techniques to in fact make somewhat more interesting inferences, eg:
Cool deal dude. Confirmation bias and false extrapolation are common tools of the human mind to avoid the fact that very little is known for certain. Which is to say, humans are often uncomfortable acknowledging profound ignorance, and for most things - that's exactly what we are.
Therefore, stating that a bunch of people on hacker news wrote something goes on to say absolutely nothing more than just exactly that.
This is to point out the extrapolations you made are totally unsupported without more than anecdata. The very well sourced article linked would indicate you are cherry-picking and/or misrepresenting.
Minor mea culpa, I realize now the population you are extrapolating to is all HN threads regarding Twitter/Musk and not more broad. I apologize for misreading and inferring you were extrapolating to all of media and more. Nonetheless, the point of unsupported (or false) extrapolation stands.
Burden of proof is for you to find specific examples, quote them, link them, then find data that those items did not come to pass. Following that, find more quotes that are similar, enough so that it's a persistent and significant percentage to constitute an actual trend. Until then, it's anecdata. You are the one making the claim, it is up to you to provide the evidence to back it.
Let's say I did read "those thread". If I were then to come back and say "nope - it all checked out, the histrionics were in your head." I'd wager you would respond by saying I read the wrong threads. I doubt you are willing to engage in a good-faith discussion further at this point. I'm not sure exactly which point you are making, which threads you are thinking, and I'm certainly not going to go try to find the evidence for a very vague claim that you are making.
I suppose we can probably end the bad faith argument here pretty readily.
Your claim is that there is at least one internet commentator who made a prediction in potentially bad faith, pearl clutching, where that prediction did not bear fruit. This is based on examples which you recollect.
Can you claim that this is a phenomenon that is a majority opinion, or even widespread? You would be doing so based on examples, which is cherry-picking. In addition, using human recollection only introduces confirmation-bias.
In contrast, an article that sites something like 20 different studies, which shows that indeed a number of negative outcomes did occur is a very different basis for making statements.
Rule of thumb, unless you have data - you don't know, and if you think you do, you're probably wrong. Therefore those that claim big things without giving data...
Given the number of downvotes you seem to get.. The HN community favors and rewards discussions that are based on data, and not just feelings or "I saw 5 people write X and from that I extrapolate X to be true for tens of millions of other people."
Please review, these guidelines are what keeps this site different from Reddit or Twitter, or any other trolly comment section of just about any other website: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously;"
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity."
The old: "I know you are, but what am I." - well done.
If you can point out where I am cherry-picking data, please do so. If you would point out exactly how I have violated the HN discussion guidelines, please do so (arguably this is turning into a flame-war, mea culpa again for entertaining a bad faith argument for too long)
Otherwise, at this juncture your claim, "at least one pearl clutching internet commentator turned out to be wrong" is not super interesting and your incorrectly extrapolated opinion that "all of them who said X were wrong" is unsupported, debunked by previously cited data, and is a good example of cherry-picking data. You were asked to provide citations and/or backing data for your opinions, and it seems the best you have mustered is: "I'm rubber and you're glue"
Not triggered, just pointing out anecdata. Your previous statements were unsupported. The reference I cited gave some examples of how those statements were inaccurate.
Last thought, when others disagree with me - I do spend a bit more time on the subject to double check my thinking and to assess their opinion in greater detail. Finding places where oneself was incorrect is a good way to grow.
Unfortunately, chat communities on the modern internet are more about performative trolling (as you would put it), rather than ever admitting mistake or being wrong. It's about noise generation and not much more. With luck, hacker news can be a last bastion where the noise is unwelcome, whereas facts, data and analsyis are welcome. That is a difference between reddit or Twitter & here.
The point in contention "I find the histrionics a form of performative trolling."
- others have pointed out that the histrionics is your perspective. You noted statements like "the site will be down all the time", others have corrected that they have seen statements like "greater downtime" - and the data does back that up.
- therefore, what are you talking about exactly? This is why I'm saying you have the burden of proof to show exactly what you are talking about, with quotes, links, citations, data. Otherwise it seems that you're making a mountain of a mole-hill from cherry-picked data that likely fit your own confirmation bias. Which is not really a useful insight when someone is just saying: "see, gee, that one person over there - they exaggerated!" Is it really a large number of people that were making incorrect statements, enough that you're not just cherry-picking data? Hopefully you got the point, that nobody's word is really just taken at face value here, and those that are - are opinions and are not worth much (which goes for my opinions too, and anyone else's here.)
Kinda nice actually. This is like the one thing Musk has done at Twitter that I agree with. I think sexuality is a normal part of life, we shouldn't be so fussy about it (within consent obviously). It's not even always for money, many people just enjoy it sharing their content.
However it should be behind a filter of course. Just like reddit does. So those who are interested can view it and the rest can avoid it.
NIH hosts papers. It is not an authority by itself.
The NIH paper is from the following authors:
Haseeb Mehmood Qadri, corresponding author 1 Abdul Waheed,1 Ali Munawar,2 Hasan Saeed,3 Saad Abdullah,4 Tayyba Munawar,1 Shaheer Luqman,1 Junaid Saffi,1 Awais Ahmad,5 and Muhammad Saad Baba r6
1 Surgery, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, PAK
2 Surgery, Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, PAK
3 Pathology, Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, PAK
4 General Surgery, Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, PAK
5 Surgery, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK
6 General Surgery, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, PAK
Pakistan may have a strongly religious influence on its faculty... and I'm going to ask what expertise surgeons have on the subject mater compared to the layman.
You find it weird that different religions have different views on the morality or lack thereof? Christianity has a significant amount of stuff layered on top that differentiates it from pre-New Testament. Also plenty of Jewish people identify as atheists, so I'm not sure why their Jewishness would be meaningful to Christians when evaluating the morality of it.
Man this being downvoted seconds after being posted speaks volumes about how ubiquitous porn sickness on a site supposed to satisfy iNtElLeCtUaL cUrIoSiTy
> Expectations of Professorial and Professional Faculty
> 2.1 Faculty Standards
> BYU is a private university with unique goals and aspirations rooted in the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a faculty member’s responsibility to contribute affirmatively to the full realization of human potential and to a university environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God (see Mission Statement). Faculty members should also provide students an education that is spiritually strengthening, intellectually enlarging, and character building and that leads to lifelong learning and service (see Aims of a BYU Education).
The link to the NIH paper in the commented I replied to is from the surgical wings of various hospitals in Lahore.
In other comments USU extension is Utah State University... which while not BYU has similar influences.
The impartiality of these sources is to be brought into question.
I would also note there is a significant cultural difference between Utah, Poland (the sources for two other links), Lahore, and the US at large that may more than slightly influence the agendas of the authors.
These excerpts from [1] sum it up kinda well (I recommend reading the full article, it makes a few additional points not listed here):
"“My biggest concern regarding the scientific study of porn is that a noticeable subset of researchers come at these issues with a focus on harm in their minds. They try to establish ways to confirm that porn is causing whatever harm they already believe exists,” he says. “The field needs more people who are willing to look at the data and leave aside their politics and their issues.”" [1]
"Voon says. “What we do know with porn is that there are some patterns that are consistent with an addiction – but some that are not. We need much larger epidemiological studies to know for sure.”" [1]
"A meta-analysis – a study of studies – published by Malamuth in 2009 found that hundreds of papers from the 1980s to 2008 were fairly consistent in linking high rates of porn viewing with violent ideas and behaviour. But here’s the caveat: not all men respond to porn in the same way." [1]
"For most men, consuming porn will not cause them to view women differently. But in those who already are predisposed to hold sexist views or to behave in an aggressive fashion, porn can exacerbate pre-existing and dangerous propensities. In this way, it’s just like any other drug."
"Alcohol, for example, is in many ways comparable to porn because it is ubiquitous, socially acceptable and legal."
“For some people, alcohol can truly ruin their lives,” explains Malamuth. “But for others it can be mildly positive, such as providing stress relief or enhancing their sex lives. It depends on the cultural context – and the individual.”
"The field is riddled with misconceptions and biases that are not supported by the data, she says."
"Despite concerns that porn can decrease libido and lead to impotence due to ‘tolerance’ and ‘desensitisation’, research published by Prause in the journal Sexual Medicine in 2015 shows these worries to be unfounded."
"“The most well-replicated and concerning harm is reinforcing rape myths in men who already believe them,” says Prause. Such that if you take a woman on a date, she owes you sex. Or that women secretly want to be coerced into sex."
Are you suggesting that when BYU faculty or grad students do a study and come to a conclusion that counters Church teachings rather than simply not publishing the study they instead would falsify the study to make it come to the opposite conclusion and publish that?
I am saying that if they were to do research on the subject, they would either start from the hypothesis and work to prove that (and social sciences have difficulties with replication crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis that it becomes possible to prove any result), or that a study that found contrary would get a "yea, we're not publishing that", or that people interested in researching the expanded domain would get suggested that this would not be something to aide them on a tenure track or advancement and they should look to other research areas.
> It is a condition of employment that faculty members act in accordance with university policies, including the Academic Freedom Policy, the Church Educational System Honor Code, and the Church Educational System Dress and Grooming Principles and Expectations. Faculty who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who accept an offer of university employment on or after January 27, 2022, also accept as a condition of employment that they will hold and be worthy to hold a current temple recommend.
> As integral members of the university community, faculty are expected to be role models of a life that combines spiritual values and personal integrity with intellectual rigor and academic excellence, and to conduct their work in a professional manner consistent with the principles and values espoused by the university and the Church of Jesus Christ. They are expected to live lives reflecting a love of God, a commitment to keeping His commandments, and loyalty to the Church of Jesus Christ. They should engage in continuing faculty development and maintain high levels of performance throughout their careers.
Does this suggest that one could research such a domain that would run counter to teachings of the church and remain employed?
>. the research found that pornography use by men or women at any level negatively impacted romantic relationships
What if you don't have any, and nowhere to get? What if you're 14 and realistically any serious romantic relations are many years in the future for you?
He is saying that his 14 year-old self had no apparent sexual value, thus questioning what romantic relationship was going to be harmed. Are you trying to tell us that you want to enter into romantic relationships with 14 year-olds and are worried that porn is diminishing the quality of those relationships?
If you think that general dating is stacked about 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 you're not?
> 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. Still at it many decades later.
Regardless, I suspect at 14 the biggest competition you are up against is that which you have failed to mention: Nobody. It is not down to either you or someone else. The romantic interests involved can easily choose to not get involved with anyone.
> 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.
Or left to watch because they weren't good enough to be chosen to play? If a team pulled someone from the crowd to join in, the selected is saying no every time? Colour me skeptical.
> Well done, but you are an exception.
I'd say about half of the people I went to school with are still doing the same thing they were doing at 14. I'm not sure that is a marker of exceptionalism, but, indeed, that still leaves many 14 year-olds with only a job. But is there a meaningful difference between a career and a job in this context?
> i.e humans have 5 fingers. Yes, some have 6, but for the most part, we have 5.
And here I am counting ten. Do you hang out with inattentive lawnmower enthusiasts?
> In your school, were there no relationships?
Not something I ever felt the need to keep tabs on, I'm afraid. The data suggests that most 14 year-olds are virgins, though, so while it is possible respondents are prone to lie, if we take it at face value that would suggest that by and large they are not forming such romantic relationships, either by their own accord or because they are unable to find a willing mate.
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.
Speaking from personal experience when I was in school, there were a a decent amount of relationships between students in the same year(often sharing some sort of classes).
> Apologies, but I was reading that you are claiming that dating at 14 years old damages your future prospects. Perhaps I couldn't parse.
To avoid any confusion, my stance is: Regular pornography viewing (as a 14 year old or as an adult) hurts your perception of what normal relationships/sex are and will hurt your relationships, in the future or in the current. Additionally it creates complacency as it's easier to put on a website and rub one out than it is to improve yourself to be a good candidate, and go out and meet women. Additionally the porn industry is very harmful towards women (sex trafficking, and incentivizing 18 year old women to perform, when your prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed yet).
> I'm just at loss why you don't list the negatives of NOT watching pornography
I don't believe there's any beside quick release.
> such as feeling lonely, worthless and desperate, not having any meaning to your life, and not having any way to divert these thoughts
I disagree that pornography viewing actually helps combat any of those. I would say it actually helps those grow. Feeling of loneliness is at it's highest, and so is pornography viewing (but, correlation does not mean causation). I don't think you can replace real human interactions with pornography (or parasocial relationships, for that matter).
I'm curious, do you think AI boyfriend/girlfriend/friend is/will be a plus or a negative on society?
I do agree on what you said about dysfunction/pre-mature ejaculation, but I don't think it's the only factor. I think that porn can also contribute. Either through "death-grip", unrealistic expectation of sex/beauty, or requiring more "hardcore"/"extreme" content to become aroused.
The research attributes this mainly to the decline in alcohol consumption. Which I suppose isn't terribly surprising. Alcohol has been long known as the "social lubricant" for good reason.
> and so is pornography viewing (but, correlation does not mean causation).
Causation is not implied, but at the same time it wouldn't be very human-like to see that decline in alcohol consumption be replaced by nothing, so perhaps you are onto something. Perhaps alcohol consumption is on the decline because porn is taking its place. They do both target dopamine production, so it is not inconceivable.
The temperance movement putting more emphasis on pornography lends additional credence to the idea, although perhaps that is simply because they feel they are finally starting to "win the war" on alcohol.
> I'm curious, do you think AI boyfriend/girlfriend/friend is/will be a plus or a negative on society?
You can always tell when you are around tech people. Hint: The real world isn't binary.
I believe that "AI girlfriend" is bullshit. Romantic relations are inherently socially validating. Having an AI talk to you does not validate you. It does not have any choice, after all.
"Decent amount of relationships" is bullshit. There's a decent number of housing and renting anywhere housing crisis is taking place. It is purely a question of supply and demand and therefore odds.
It is as reasonable to say "look, some students are having relationships so you're a-OK" as "look, some people are renting and even buying homes, why aren't you happy".
The demand formula is overwhelmingly stacked against young boys. They had their options a hundred years ago; and fifty years ago perhaps they were just supposed to cope in the late-adolescence doll-house setup, but today it increasingly looks like you have no mouth but must scream.
Well, you're not going spend time pondering relationships that are not your own. That would be completely nonsocial. We don't know how old you are, but if you are an adult, what do you see in this 14 year old you have your eye on?
It is your life to live, but if your actions disgust you, why be that person?
I had no interest in smokes/vapes at 14 years old (or now, for that matter). What would I have gained by seeing restrictions on them when I was 14 years old?
Again, please stop projecting. I am not the one who wants to expose 14 year olds to sex.
I was not sexually trafficked when I was 14 year olds, so what would I have gained from sex trafficking being illegal, right? Your line of thinking makes no sense.
> I am not the one who wants to expose 14 year olds to sex.
You indicated that it would be a future relationship, so nobody was previously under the impression you would be exposing a 14 year old to sex. Of course, now that you have suggested it out of the blue...
> I was not sexually trafficked when I was 14 year olds, so what would I have gained from sex trafficking being illegal, right?
No. That does not logically follow. I would not have wanted to be trafficked at 14, so any circumstances that prevented that from happening would have been valued. The question was: What would I have gained by being restricted from accessing something I already had no interest in accessing?
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.
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.
> The more education a mother has, the fewer children she will have on average in her lifetime. While fertility drops somewhat with each additional level of education, the biggest fertility gap occurs between women who lack a high school diploma and those who have completed high school.
> Moms ages 40 to 44 who lack a high school diploma have about 2.9 children in their lifetimes, on average, while those with a high school diploma or some college have about 2.4 kids. Mothers at the end of their childbearing years who have a bachelor’s degree or higher have about 2.2 children on average.
Though I would certainly not say that one should be encouraging teenage pregnancy nor hindering the education of women in an attempt to boost the fertility rate.
Blaming the declining fertility rate in western nations on pornography seems to miss the more obvious causes.
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).
Economic stability (and the lack thereof) makes it difficult to start / grow a family. This also extends to difficulties in family planning. The result of this is that it can be economically safer / more stable to live alone in an apartment than it would be to spend money on courtship, expectations of a wedding, and house.
Lack of social support for families with children. Once you have a child, the costs and demands on the family are significant. This extends to things like reducing the support for WIC, difficulties in finding childcare (and its expense). Again, the outlook for having a child is a lot of money.
The difficulty of maintaining a family and a career (side bit - telecommuting is a step in the right direction for white collar jobs). Having a stay at home mother / wife is difficult in today's world. Both the expectations of "that's not what I want to do" and the income that isn't there. Supporting a couple on a single blue collar isn't viable, and supporting a family is way out of the question.
And so, yea, guys aren't sexually active. The social, medical, and economic risks are too high for all people involved.
Under this model, porn isn't the cause, but rather the symptom of the social and economic difficulties faced by individuals. Attempting to "treat" the symptom (of people watching porn) isn't going to make men more sexually active any more than a box of tissues next to the bed treats the flu instead.
Me? why am I a single male living alone? Because when I was in the SF Bay in the '90s and early '00s, the ratio of single women to single in the 20 to 29 age bracket was about 80 to 100 (map from 2015 http://visualizing.nyc/bay-area-zip-codes-singles-map/ - its better now than it was in the '90s ). The only place in the US that was worse were Air Force bases in Alaska. Put that down for two decades and then adding the "well, I got no money" after the dot com crash and '08 ... and I'm certainly not looking to start a family with some (un)lucky lady.
In an alternate universe with today's technology I would have stayed in my college town and worked remotely in tech and hooked up with that cute young woman (back then) from one of my classes rather than going our separate ways when I got a job ... though if I was 21 today that would be back to the "can't afford it" category.
The thing to do is to make the ability for someone to plan a family for the next 20 years something that can be done. Until one can look to the future and be able to feel some assurance that they'll be in a better situation than they are today, the risks and uncertainty of "settling down" are enough to stifle many of dreams of a family.
> And so, yea, guys aren't sexually active. The social, medical, and economic risks are too high for all people involved.
I don't really see how you equate being sexually active with reproduction though. In this day and age they are very different things. And many men and also many women (though I believe less, they often have an urge to have them) simply don't want kids. Doesn't mean that they can't have a relationship or a healthy sex life.
Up four comments in the chain we're replying and you get:
> 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.
The implication is that porn is hindering the replacement rate of a population.
> 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 welfare and wanting their microwave ovens and fridges too.
> Also, more people are single, more men are not sexually active, high divorce rates, etc.
It's just that we have more freedom. Couples that married young and were forced to stay together to appease the community were super common in the 50s. We don't have to anymore. And I don't think divorces are a problem as such. I don't think marriage is important. I've had a more than a decade-long relationship and we never thought of getting married.
And kids are just difficult to have now. These days it's necessary for both partners to work and that doesn't fit well with having kids. It's a big hassle. I never wanted them in the first place and I'm glad I didn't. That doesn't mean that people don't have sex.
I see a lot more sexual freedom too. Swinging, sex-positive parties, polyamory etc. Many couples I know share their intimacy, as do my partner and I. 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 know several married couples that would have not been able to stay together if they weren't so liberal to let off steam once in a while.
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.
> Yes, those are bad, horrible things. It's why a lot of governments are trying to incentivize them to go up.
It might be a bit bad short term like with the boomer wave getting old and nobody being there to take care of them. But in the long term we'll get over that bump and it's way better for the planet. It won't support infinite growth.
> 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.
It's still their choice though. If they don't have a partner they can always just pay for it once in a while. I also do sometimes between relationships, no big deal.
> 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.
I understand, it's very personal. I like it myself. I don't think it's bad if relationships don't last anyway. I'm still best friends with most of my exes. It just moved into a different phase. I didn't get married anyway and I've never wanted kids.
I don't think you can blame porn for all that though. I think it's more of a symptom of the higher sexual freedom we have now, than a cause.
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.
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.
For a lot, it's enough for them not to have to go out of their comfort zone and put in effort. It's a lot easier to open up a site than it is for an average guy to get laid.
> It's a lot easier to open up a site than it is for an average guy to get laid.
Well, yes, absolutely. It's quite difficult actually. Especially if your only goal is "to get laid" and don't want any other commitment. There's apps like tinder of course but even then it's quite difficult to stand out for men. I certainly don't manage that.
Personally I think it's more fair on the lady in question to just pay for it in those cases. Where both parties know what to expect and there is no pretense of more. No messing with hearts.
When it comes to that it's not like it difficult (though I suppose in the US it's illegal in some states, where I'm from it's quite normal).
Indeed. That speculation is where we get into trouble as human beings (we like to see rabbits in clouds, we're evolved to see patterns where often there are none). And of course - in sociology, and all the variability of human behavior and the overall human experience - sociology is perhaps the toughest field of any to create any form of scientific knowledge at all. For example, the "great replication crisis". I appreciate your being open to dialog and having had a reasonably pleasant exchange. Thank you
I agree, The only problem is that sexuality shouldn’t be coming all the time randomly. Why? Because sex is primal and preoccupies the mind when you are on it.
This is rather misleading: as the article explains, porn was always permitted on Twitter—it was never prohibited by Twitter's ToS. Actually, I'm rather confused what the substance of this story is. Is it just a finer sub-classification of the NSFW label system?
What X does or does not do is increasingly irrelevant. They have a CEO who is good at creating attention for himself, but Twitter/X has substantially less active users than Pinterest now. I am almost surprised there is time to make this change while working on board vote politics on his $50B compensation package controversy at his other CEO job.
With all the downvote this clearly triggered some people in bad ways, but it is true. Twitter is about 250M, Pinterest is about 500M.
Twitter is down substantially in all publicly disclosed metrics / investor writedowns since the go private transaction. I don't know what it is about them that makes some people treat the company with deference it doesn't deserve, but it's a shrinking, niche social network.
I like this, they never had rules explicitly against NSFW, but tech companies love their unstated rules and boundaries and it's nice to have somewhat of a reversal on that.
This could get pretty wild considering the whole bot situation and the way Red States are handling adult content these days...
reply