> Do we really need tens of thousands, or even millions of porn actors?

Who do you mean by "we"? I guess if these people are able to earn a living then there must be a market for their content and the answer is yes.

> wouldn't society be better off if they did practically anything else as an honest living?

They make content that others are willing to pay for, with little to no negative externalities. I can't see how that's bad or dishonest?

I don't see why you're criticizing pornography when there are lots of jobs out there that are actually dishonest and are net negatives for society at large, like the aforementioned religious lobbying group the article is talking about.

> with little to no negative externalities

Porn is extremely toxic to the mind and soul. In my mind a drug dealer and a pornographer are in the same category. You're selling vices that destroy a person's life and mind. I'm sure I'm going to get coomers telling me pornography isn't that bad but a simple google search of "negative consequences of pornography" will show that there are many negatives to pornography. A heroin addict is willing to pay for heroin but that doesn't mean that they should be able to freely. They should be put in a treatment center, same with people who buy pornography.

Rather than telling us to "do our own research", could you post those sources here so they can be discussed?

They only are in the business for one and a half year, not more. It earns good and honest money, 1000-2000 a day. The dishonest ones are the criminal parties around, the producers, procurers, agents and before the mafia. Several producers and activists tried to get rid of the criminals with some success in the last decades, but it's a constant up and down. Going after the actors is the wrong idea if you want to help.