>>106400217
According to /g/, yes.
IMO, we can certainly do more to reduce the problem before we reach the point where we're subjugating everyone.
For example we can have laws that prohibit the promotion of porn, the same way there are laws against the promotion of gambling, tobacco, etc.
That would at least drastically reduce the presence of porn-related and porn-adjacent things in the "kid zeitgeist".
Making it illegal for all porn/sex workers to appear in content that kids watch (and we can work on defining that, but at the very least the OnlyFans girls promoting their content with barely SFW Twitch streams and TikTok memes in which they look as sexy as possible, needs to stop).
Basically pornstars are essentially their own brands and need to be treated as equivalent to a smaller version of Brazzers and other porn brands that aren't based on a specific person.
This would pretty much only affect the adult industry and the rest of us would only see less porn-related things in our day-to-day life.
There can also be measures based on parental control that aren't enforced by law, but are an additional tool for parents to make sure their kids don't see this stuff.
For example Internet-facing companies can optionally make different versions of their content that are labeled with the potentially unwanted topics it contains, and the parents can set up their devices so that it only shows content without those labels.
For example a 7yo can have their devices block things that show/discuss sexuality, violence, etc. and only allow web-1.0-style read-only pages where they can't interact with others, so they can watch and read on interesting and enriching contents without being exposed to potentially harmful stuff.
As the kid ages, the parental controls can be set to be more lax (like allowing violence in educational contexts like history, allowing interactions under monitored circumstances, etc)
A child welfare organization can certify that the labels are truthful or whatever
