this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
57 points (98.3% liked)

Privacy

5846 readers
190 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
57
Youth social media bans should raise privacy concerns for everyone (www.wearequeeraf.com)
submitted 1 week ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There are plenty of reasons why I don't think kids should be on Lemmy, at the very least without supervision. Like, come on — people post porn here regularly.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We now already have a few generations with plenty of members who started watching online porn when they were technically too young for that, and we can now tell that this hasn't harmed them.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Prove it.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can't prove a negative, that's not how experiments and hypothesis works.

If you're making a claim that early exposure causes harm, you're the one that has to prove it via the following steps:

  • Set up criterias for assessment
  • Decide on a test methodology
  • Collect data
  • Analyze results and draw conclusions
  • Publish for peer review to make sure your methodology was appropriate

Congratulations, you have just been taught how to do science

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You can't prove a negative, that's not how experiments and hypothesis works.

Yet you completely ignored studies like this from the National Library of Medicine

Excerpt:

Prolonged exposure to pornography is known to lead to habituation, resulting in blunted processing of pleasurable stimuli and greater sensitivity to negative stimuli (21). Continuous use of pornography impairs emotional processing capacity and flattens affect, reducing emotional connection to real-life sexual experiences. The reward and gratification system adapts by releasing large amounts of dopamine, but tolerance develops, requiring increasingly higher doses, quantities, and intensity to achieve arousal

So we know it behaves like a drug, the study goes into further detail how it affects adolescents — and here you are saying 'no it isn't actually that bad'.

Ask a heroin addict about his quality of life and his answer depends on his last hit.