this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
512 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59287 readers
4330 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Popular porn sites now display unproven health warnings thanks to Texas law::Popular online adult film sites in Texas are posting health warnings about watching porn, despite the fact a law requiring them to do so was blocked in August.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 276 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

“potentially biologically addictive” and “proven to harm human brain development.”

These warnings should be required for all social media sites every time you open any webpage or app.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 85 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] BlackSkinnedJew@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 1 year ago

Bible should have a schizophrenia warning on it.

[–] totallynotarobot@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While they're at it they could add "potential to cause spontaneous human combustion" or "potentially damaging to time-space continuum." Potentially. I'm no porn fan, but my understanding is the evidence on the addictiveness claims is super weak.

The causal arrow between porn and the brain development thing could easily go either way. It's hard to tell.

[–] trachemys@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Surely porn is known to California to cause cancer.

[–] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It must, that label is on everything, so it effectively means nothing. This exchange happened between my wife and I a couple months ago

'oh honey look..this pink Himalayan salt, which expires in...2 weeks?!? is known to the state of cancer to cause California. Ah, science. What a time to be alive'

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

The amount of lead in Himalayan salt (it's mined from mountains in Pakistan) can be above allowed limits, and especially can cause developmental issues in children. Europe has same or possibly more stringent lead expectations.

I guess the two takes could be "ugh California has warnings on everything so it's meaningless" or "wow, FDA really doesn't give a fuck and allows all this stuff to go unchecked"

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if the label itself is what causes cancer?!?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

They're usually vinyl (PVC), and it probably does. At least it would if you ingest or burn it. Burning it could release chlorine, too, so the cancer might be the least of your worries.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Don't forget the reproductive harm!

[–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Shhh don't give them any ideas!

[–] iopq@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, there's such a thing as being addicted to porn. I fall to see how you get such an addiction without looking at it

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Yes, but there's such a thing as being addicted to sex, too, and pretty much any pleasurable activity. It's generally pretty rare.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Causation vs. Correlation. Porn addicts have obviously watched porn. But that doesn't mean that watching porn causes porn addiction.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's like saying drug addicts have obviously used drugs, but it's only correlated to their addiction

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not really. Drugs do have psychoactive components that can, provably and physiologically, cause addiction with a single use. Opioids famously have been observed to cause neural changes in rats consistent with addiction after a single dosage.

It's more like, gambling. Millions of people gamble, a portion of them have a gambling addiction. Does that mean that gambling causes addiction? well, obviously, yes, but also, no. Or else how to explain the millions of people who can even take a vacation in Las Vegas but don't feel a constant compulsion to gamble all of their money away. Equally, almost every single human being has sex in their lifetimes, but only a small portion of the population suffers a compulsion to have sex constantly. Does sex causes addiction? the question is in itself way too simplistic and disingenuous. Addiction involves so many other factors that it can't be reduced to “being exposed to porn causes addiction”.

I think it's more of a continuum between purely psychological and purely chemical, and most things fall somewhere in the grade.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Marijuana is a drug that does not cause physical addiction from one use. Yet people get addicted to it, even though most don't. Would you say using marijuana causes addiction?

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

So, you didn't read my comment. Noted.

[–] CrowAirbrush@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Please don't the 17 attempts for me to surrender my cookies are already exhausting my willingness to use the web.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • Do you accept cookies?
  • Bonus GDPR consent because we couldn't be bothered rolling cookie consent into it!
  • Subscribe to our newsletter!
  • Enable notifications!
  • Log in to Google!

These popups are worse than the actual pop-up ads - at least those were in separate windows or tabs and so could be closed easily with keyboard shortcuts.

[–] CrowAirbrush@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I often decline their cookie bull, they'll just keep asking with every new page i load from that website. Preferably with a pop-up that covers 2/3rd of the screen.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think but haven't done any proper investigations, that some sites only store your cookie response if you accept a certain kind of cookies. Basically every site now divides cookies up into functional, optimisation and marketing, and I have at least observed:

  1. go to website, receive prompt
  2. decline all non-required cookies
  3. go to next page within website, receive prompt again
  4. decline all but functional cookies (or similar wording
  5. go to next page, no prompt.
[–] CrowAirbrush@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You're probably right about this.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 year ago

If you can figure out which script is responsible for the pop-up, it's usually possible to block it by, for instance, feeding its URL to your ad blocker. Just takes a bit of patience.

[–] Strobelt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

All this on news sites and when you refuse everything you get into a paywall

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Today's Internet is so much worse than the Internet a decade ago... Exponentially higher speeds, yet everything runs way slower and you have to dig for anything you want out of a sea of that

[–] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

*It looks like you searched with Google!

Would you like to log into Google?

Would you like to log into Google?

Would you like to log into Google?

Would you…

Would you…