Hacker News Reader

Why always only nudity? Why not everything violence, for example weapons, dead people, whatever? Children should eventually have good sex when they grow up but they should not kill people. Still they get exposed to a lot of violence and comparatively little healthy sexuality. Why can they drop anvils onto each other's heads in cartoons but not fuck each other?

View on HN

Worst-case for both as far as the effect of seeing the image(s) per se is very similar, which is that maybe you have an image in your head you wish you could forget. OK, not ideal, but also not the end of the world, and sure, the two are similar in that regard.

The difference is that images of violence aren't as strongly associated with things like sharing of personal images that haunt a person later, with really disgusting and effective forms of bullying, or with efforts to get kids to do something harmful IRL. Could they be? Can I concoct such a scenario? Sure, but these other things are in-fact happening a lot (ask any teacher or other person who works with kids ages ~12 and up)

That's why specifically when it comes to Internet messaging services and kids, nudes are a bigger problem than images of violence. I agree with you more broadly, but the context is important here, and is why in this narrow case the two things are meaningfully different, and nudity is the bigger problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com