• Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Nah 7 year olds should not be using any internet without parental controls either way so the protection is absolutely moot here. Also your “sex” example returns absolutely zero sexual content on google, Bing or duckduckgo images while boob does.

    Also tbh I’m not particularly convinced that seeing porn is all that damaging. Doing quick research it seems that there are no proven damages or development impacts and real actual danger of porn is teaching teens and young adults distorted views of sex and gender roles. Seems like kids in your example aren’t even capable of such frameworks to begin with.

    So despite how nasty it sounds there’s no convincing evidence that its even a real danger. In fact, it seems like exposure to violent images like gore and freak accidents thats having real damage.

    If you have some oposing evidence I’d gladly take a look but I’m really unconvinced here that googling boob could be in any way detrimental.

    • hansolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      OK… So, the initial question was “how could anyone support this?” right?

      I’m simply explaining how some people see the argument. I never said I see it like this.

      So I’m by no means defending any of this other than it being technically possible, and at that, this falls far short of anything resembling acceptable in my book.

      Parents who vote and would support this would do so based on limited technical knowledge and a total ideological investment in “preventing” any exposure. Which, we agree, is idiotic.

      Y’all really need to chill out with your pitchforks.