I think the idea is disruption of online livelihoods comes along with unseen and ignored externalities. Loss of online exposure will push online sex workers to make up loss of income to less safe sex work environments.

And there's no difference between this 2nd order effect that may harm porn producers (or maybe consumers will find other channels besides Instagram to get porn, and overall porn consumption won't decrease), and hiring goons with baseball bats to assault prostitutes.

Or if there's a difference, it's so small that we can call both "violence", and insisting on some kind of categorical distinction between the two is pedantic nit-picking.

Big corp foisting social agency change on people has biological effects. It rather highlights the lack of free agency and self determination our society is built on.

Go ahead and be academic but you’re one of billions, aka too insignificant to matter by your own tools of measure; there’s a reason the mathematicians of old warned against the application of such cognitive tools to societies needs. Statistical insignificance is a philosophy that can be thrown right back in your face.

I'm not saying it doesn't have effects, or that it was good. But calling it "violence" dilutes the meaning of that word into nothing, as the threshold is so low almost anything qualifies as "violent".

Exactly, areas of the world where sex work is de-stigmatized and legal are much safer for all.

As if Pornhub videos are produced ethically.

As if you have some inside information.

As if you have some inside information.