Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st::Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar to what we’ve seen in the state legislatures across other red U.S. states. You have an age verification proposal that is similar…

  • figaro@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    For the lazy:

    HB 1181 would issue public health warnings including claims that porn use “increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography.” Claims that are included in the health warnings laid out by the bill suggest that porn use is “potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses, and weakens brain function.” Or, that exposure to porn “is associated with low self-esteem and body image eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.” Note how they use the term “exposure” as if a person watching porn was exposed to a real disease.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      All of that is backed up by actual evidence though. It’s not really disputed that porn affects self esteem and body issues or desensitizes reward circuits of the brain.

      • Corhen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would love for you to provide a source for “all of that is backed up by actual evidence”, and change my mind! I always want to learn.

          • Corhen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, you linked an entire website, I guess that’s a bit better thank just linking google, but doesn’t give me any specific info about your claims.

            • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I specifically linked a list of resources that are well cited. The original topic is multiple points, so this is evidence for each one, unless you want to discuss a specific item.

              • Corhen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Well, why don’t you chose one or two items from your list, and then show me a peer reviewed study proving it!

                I don’t view “I made so many different claims that I can’t bother proving any specific one” as a great argument.

                • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  As I just said above, there’s too many points in the original article. Texas requires multiple warning labels and each one has some backing. Why don’t you pick ONE topic and we can discuss it.

                  • Corhen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    So, you make a claim, asked to provide any proof of any single one, and go “nah, you do it for me, I’m too lazy”

                    I’m sorry, that’s just not a convincing argument!