Community Rules
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.
You'd look for studies about the effects of that stuff on developing minds. And then studies that show the efficacy of age verification on keeping underaged people out...
Are you saying you tried to find both of those and came up empty handed?
Or did you not try that and are just asking for someone to provide studies for you?
More of the first one you mentioned. I tried once, and I had little luck. I found one that had what I thought was poor methodology. I didn't keep a link.
I searched:
effects of social media on developing minds
And this was the first result on duckduckgo
https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2022/social-media-children-teens
It'll be easier to read than straight studies, but it cites a couple you could read if the article doesn't give enough info
Thanks for the link, I'll peruse and see what I see.
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.
I just came back to this, the linked site is a conservative think tank/ advocacy group.
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.
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.
Seems like you are looking for this.
No, I'm looking for studies either way. Several have been linked here and I've glanced at them and plan on reading them a bit more in depth when I get some time.
What would be an example of something empirical that would justify age verification for social media use or pornography? Ultimately aren't these at worst empty / arbitrary moral panics and at best the realm of moral debate?
That is, you can't take observations and turn them into a normative system ("is" doesn't give you "ought"), so what exactly are you thinking can be studied here?
I'm generally opposed to strict verification. To me the only thing that could justify it is a repeatable study that shows causation between something that the verification would restrict and a negative (not moral panic negative) outcome. Whenever its brought up the "think of the children" comments come out and I am skeptical. It often sounds like video games cause violence excuses. I wanted to know if there was actual justification because to me it seems like they are usually pushed by either religious groups or some group that wants to hoover up data. I have yet to see something beyond moral panic justifying the push.