This is a modern social experiment, and while we don't have data on its consequences because so much else changed culturally at the same time, snarkily referring to people concerned about porn at a sociological level as harboring sky-wizard concerns indicates you haven't thought about the issue very much.

I'm non-religious; I have major concerns about modern or organized religions, despite recognizing psychological benefits or even necessities of religion in the abstract. However, I'm still very concerned that porn is causing unrecognized, negative consequences for society.

I don't mean all porn. I think some porn probably has net-positive effects on society and individuals. I'm talking about average, typical porn. If you go to places where lots of porn is shared, and you look at prevailing attitudes and fetishes in those places, and you think the only possible concern derives from sky-wizards, I think you're blind.

The one very recent saving grace of porn in its latest incarnation is that average amateur porn seems to be less horrifically impersonal and non-representative than average professional porn. That's tempered by the massive rise of parasocial relationships and simping for e-girls, which isn't necessarily porn per se but it's porn-adjacent and probably sociologically problematic too.

I don't know what the solution is. Porn bans are impractical, and I don't know what force could counter the ability to hang out on pornhub clicking on each new thing that looks even more enticing than the last, unleashing fetishes and unrealistic expectations. Some people seem to adopt a strong porn aesthetic that keeps them focused on less fetishistic, less absurd, and I would argue healthier porn. However, that's not the majority, and that's merely my personal subjective assessment. I have no idea if what I think is healthier porn is actually net-positive. It just seems that way to me. This is something we need generations of data on with the rest of society not changing much, and we're never going to get that.

Since I haven't brought up "sky wizard", perhaps if you have any actual evidence of harm you might show me?

*Citation needed

The fundamental questions are

1. Does porn usage line up with other patterns of addiction?

2. Are similarly addicting things withheld from children because their brains are less equipped to handle it?

If yes to both, then it’s a no-brainer.

Well, yeah, it would...

>1. Does porn usage line up with other patterns of addiction?

I'm not sure what this question is asking. Porn usage may or may not 'line up' with patterns of addiction. That doesn't mean that porn always or even the majority of the time is. Can you rephrase this question into something more coherent?

>2. Are similarly addicting things withheld from children because their brains are less equipped to handle it?

LOL absolutely not. Children, especially American children, are given huge amounts of sugar, which is actually physically addictive. Many are given huge amounts of caffeine which is again, physically addictive.

Millions of children around the country have tons of access to video games and TV, which can be addictive.

>If yes to both, then it’s a no-brainer.

Well, you're first question doesn't make any sense, and your second question is a resounding no.

The best way to keep your child from becoming addicted to anything is to act like a parent.

A kid with a peanut allergy who came into contact with peanuts, even accidentally one time, could be fatal.

And we already have something similar for porn sites, in the form of the "Are you over 18?" landing page banners.

You're not arguing that "laws don't actually do anything", right?

Gun control laws? Japan's ex-PM got blown away by a wacko with a homemade shotgun, so I guess gun control laws just don't work. Nevermind the rate of gun violence in Japan.. it's all or nothing.

that assassin was motivated by an extreme religious affiliation to the lawmakers. There is irony here.

> In 2019, 37% of US high school students reported lifetime use of marijuana and 22% reported use in the past 30 days.1 Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019. However, large percentages of middle and high school students reported past-year marijuana vaping—8% of eighth graders, 19% of 10th graders, and 22% of 12th graders.

> Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019.

I've got a guess about why the number might be rising, and it rhymes with "egalization", in which case, yes, making drugs illegal reduced use of drugs. I guarantee fewer people in general, including fewer kids, smoked when it was illegal, and less was consumed overall. I'd further bet there's a lot less pot consumption by kids now, than there would be if dispensaries didn't verify age.

But I also suspect it's just kinda hard to get clean data about teen drug use. I'd also guess the real figures are extremely uneven (that "8% of eighth graders", if accurate, probably means 20% some places and 2% in others) and high use correlates to places where it's easy to get, which supports the notion that carding or outlawing should reduce use (since they make it harder to get).

(Nb. I'm pro-legalization, I just think carding and outlawing almost certainly strongly curb use, though of course they don't stop it completely, and I think "this wasn't perfectly effective, so it's necessarily useless" isn't a strong point in most situations)

People do "make changes" for specific allergies & food restrictions by making the information available & creating some allergen-free zones (just like adult content is currently kept out of schools and family-friendly locations, and there are adult-content warnings most times) but peanut access is absolutely currently up to the parent, in general.

I'm not even sure what the billboard thing is getting at. We shouldn't have nudity on billboards (except female breasts in nonsexual contexts), just like we shouldn't keep peanuts where we know anyone allergic has to be. Counter-hypothetical: it would be incredibly stupid to lock up peanut butter because kids might take a $5 bill to the store and buy the clearly-labelled jar.

We mandate labeling. We could not do that and just say "parents, you must run a peanut-detection lab or have extremely restricted diets of only food you make yourself, to keep your kids safe", but we don't.

I realize I'm beating a dead analogy here, but I don't think we should impose those labelling restrictions on independent hobbyist websites, just like we don't require licensing or ingredient labelling for small bake sales.

But even if we did, "label obviously-adult content" would be way more reasonable than "collect personal information to verify the real-life identity of site visitors, and log this sensitive data so it can be accessed (/hacked) later"

It's still very much on the parents to prevent harm to their peanut-allergic children.

As an aside, the sharp rise in nut allergies is itself an unintended consequence of another well-meaning attempt at social engineering: about 30 years ago, manufacturers began printing "CHOKING HAZARD: DO NOT FEED NUTS TO CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD" on nut labels. Many parents complied, and that lack of any early exposure to nut proteins resulted in a massive increase in life-threatening nut allergies among children.