>>713409442
>15+ years ago you had people baiting kids into searching for sexually degen shit like goatse, lemon party, 2 girls 1 cup.
yeah and we all grew up to be totally normal and well-adjusted individuals haha. I jest, but, seriously, how could you possibly defend this on 4chan of all places in the current year of 2025 when the act of consuming hours and hours of [fetish] pornography in a single sitting is normalized to the point of being a meme (gooning). Are you living in a different timeline where young people's unfettered access to the internet didn't produce countless subcommunities of fetishists or where this lax, libertine view of internet pornography has resulted in something other than ~80% of young people being exposed to it before their teenage years?
>Personally I don't want retarded moralfags to police and fuck up the internet
Personally, I don't want a totally unrestricted internet to fuck up real people's lives in the real world. Which is more important to you, the health of real people, or the concept of an internet where anyone [everyone] has access to anything with zero protections? We're talking about pornography of course, but the underlying value here is that I want to protect people (even if it means restricting some of their "freedoms"), so we could easily expand this to something like e-scams or phishing attempts. If I send you an email with a phishing link in it and you click on it, then that's me exercising my internet free speech and it's your fault for not being tech-savvy enough to understand what a scam looks like. This is practically equivalent to me telling/tricking you to walk off of a cliff in real life, but in this situation, I'd be charged with manslaughter for intentionally endangering your life. Why shouldn't the internet be the same, at least in concept, if not practice?
You don't need to agree with me on that last point, but you should at least understand where people whom you disagree with are coming from on this issue