We are literally born naked.
How does one define "harmful for minors"?
It would be literally be illegal to test if it's harmful for minors.
The old time were children could literally see animals doing it, in the parents farm, seems very conceptual.
Also porn is like fissile material, above a given concentration(25% here), it creates some kind of chain reaction that has to be harmful be children... but not elsewhere.
This is nothing less that this Salami technic against freedom of speech:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sala...ics_(politics)
That's literally an attack against what people wants to see, after being ashamed of liking it.
Then on the website of big newspapers, you see usually a couple of comments, mostly all against porn, but later you finish to ear that the number of subscriptions for VPN skyrocketed.
Obviously the problem is likely not because they care of children, otherwise they wouldn't attack with this 25% of adult content thing.
You can still accumulate with 25%.
Teenagers without women will anyway look for it.
What is this society that shows everything (nudity is common) but then wonders that people go looking (sensual nudity).
I can forecast that a porn ban will likely push some teenagers to generative AI.
It feels possible to code a generative AI to create porn pictures based on an AI solely used for censorship.
Censorship AI are trained on porn pictures.
I guess a ban that is wide enough could probably create this generation...
The problem is that i don't find picture and video generative Ai so useful. I would rather that they study data...