Meta Ordered to Pay $942M to Address Harm to Kids from Social Media

In other words we intuit that figure as meaning female_views/total_views = 33% when in reality that number would likely be low single digits. If you count men who identify as women, as men, then the number's going to go even lower. And I expect a significant chunk of the small remaining group are going to be from couples experimenting together, at the man's behest.

[1] - https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5180/are-one-in...

"In an essay published in The Free Press in August, 16-year-old Isabel Hogben described how, by the time she was in 4th grade, she had seen internet porn featuring “simulated incest, bestiality, extreme bondage, sex with unconscious women, gangbangs, sadomasochism and unthinkable physical violence.” This is not an isolated case: A French government task force on equality recently reported that as much as 90% of online pornography features “verbal, physical and sexual violence toward women.”

Playboy wasn't necessarily a beacon of feminism (although sometimes surprisingly it was) but what young people are exposed to is in an entirely different category.

https://archive.ph/CPeNz

The UK has a lot of sex education, no such taboos, and is the home of OnlyFans. Are any of the problems you mention better in the UK than the US?

> Kill all the porn sites and you also kill any site that provides education about sex and gender issues (which society won't,) especially for gay and transgender kids,

There is no reason this has to be true.

Porn, let alone fetish porn, has a big problem because all the actors, including "amateur", are not only 'heavily used' and completely desensitized, but also the sort of people willing to publicly share video of themselves having sex. And so anybody taking any sort of que from there, whatsoever, has no clue what normal sex or normal relations look like.

Holy…what the actual…get out of my head. Where can I read more about this idea/how to recover from this type of upbringing? Please?

The First Amendment makes this kind of stuff borderline impossible to regulate in the US, but it's pretty obvious that this stuff is harmful to people's brains and that society would be better off it was not available to people (especially minors).

What?

Explain that one for the class

Its a common conception but today is your lucky day to articulate it

Some number of people might make these available to kids, but it's certainly nowhere near "freely"

Speak for yourself. The science of it seems to be a mixed bag with definite pros and cons.

You're talking about something that is also intrinsic to humanity. It takes no resources. Good luck with that.

My refraining from a thing doesn't fix the societal ill the thing causes.

Why not? Some people decide for others on abortion, some driving, some alcohol and drugs. Some people decide how much the government is allowed to steal from us.

Why wouldn’t I think I should decide for others?

You basically don't want to punish American corporations, which is just frankly odd. American corporations are some of the most destructive and anti-human organizations on the planet. Being pro-corporation means you have anti-human sentiments, and frankly what are yours? That you think people with poor constitutions or mental acuity deserve to feel mental anguish? Like what is it, just say it and save us time.

Anyone that fights back against a corporation is always seen as a hero for good reason.

Parental controls and occasionally sitting down with kids to review social media content together will still always be the correct approach, but it's hard, and the government can't mandate parents take the correct approach when it's so high-friction.

In my defense though, they didn't pay, so the court upped the amount. It's still not their "first time". Here, I found this using Google too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_involving_Meta_Platfo...