Maybe participation would be lowered, just not to the extent “they” hoped for. I have personal experience with this - we had some major social media sites blocked, and for a lot of people that was a final push to learn to avoid censorship, even if not in the best way (by sketchy free VPNs). So if you take away something very important, it might turn a person from someone who didn’t go to blocked sites into someone who isn’t bothered by blocking.
Comment on Pornhub blocks North Carolina and Montana as porn regulation spreads
PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 10 months agoPornography access seems very close to people’s heart in here but the claim “it won’t decrease viewership, probably increase it” has zero chance of being true.
However insignificant it might be, any amount of faff will lower participation and there isn’t a single person in the world thinking “I don’t watch pornography or allow my children to watch pornography but now the gubbermint is involved we’re going to do nothing else but watch smut”.
There are so many shit takes in this thread that I have to assume they’re from children upset about their pornography being cut off.
EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 10 months ago
aceshigh@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Those who want porn will get it. It’s a need, like alcohol and tobacco. It being illegal will make teens even more interested.
PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Two things that demonstrably haven’t grown more popular when they’ve been made less accessible, despite those restrictions not having 100% success rate.
And although I don’t fundamentally object to any of them, calling alcohol, tobacco and pornography a “need” just makes you sound like even more of a child.