Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
Do you mean certain types of age verification, or any type at all?
The question is what is the evidence based justification for the strict verification that is being pushed. The efficacy and implementation is a different question entirely.
So you don't mean age declaration "please insert your date of birth to access this page" type, but the government ID type?
Efficacy, risks and invasiveness are all related to justification imo.
Here's one that compares each model and rates them: https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Online-age-verification-and-childrens-rights-EDRi-position-paper.pdf
Is that similar to what you're looking for?
But your Efficacy, risks and invasiveness, are predicated on the need. If there is no need, the secondary discussion becomes redundant.
And I'm not saying there isn't a need, but I would like evidence to support the need.
Ah, so more like this? https://acpeds.org/position-statements/the-impact-of-pornography-on-children
I find the conclusion and claims a bit wild, especially given the numbers that 85% of males and 50% of females had exposure to porn at a younger age - and that was in 2009 where the internet was not as mainstream as it is today, same with like sexual liberalization itself, especially among women. If the numbers were this high back then already, we can assume they're even higher today, and in neither time frame did society collapse because of porn, or did we see much of a change in the risks that porn allegedly causes - and a lot of them I feel are better "treated" through better parenting and sexual education. Most kids turn to such material at a certain age because they get curious. Before the internet it was the VHS tapes or porn mags of their parents that were shared among friend groups.
I'm curious if they ever looked into other social factors that could've had those effects or some form of interplay. The claims for viewed child pornography seem also kinda high, unless they count what kids may have shared of themselves among each other. Unfortunately the source they reference, does not actually provide any data on that topic at all, not even a mention, which makes me question that site even more.
A lot of what you said is what I have seen when I looked into this before, and part of why I asked the question.
I just came back to this, the linked site is a conservative think tank/ advocacy group.
Yes like that. I'll have to dive into the sources presented.
So I looked into this source and its references. I will simply point out the group itself is a conservative think tank and most of the sources are the same.