De Prada attacks porn age checks, forum debates author

De Prada slams porn age checks as forum hunts for author

An article by Juan Manuel de Prada on prono and the government’s bill to protect minors has triggered a storm in an economics forum. The original text attacks the «age verification systems» prepared by the Executive, labeling them an «absurd sieve» and a «likely attack on privacy», arguing that the harm caused by prono to adults is identical to that inflicted on minors. The central thesis: if one truly wanted to combat this scourge, it would suffice to block access from servers. This is not done, he argues, because prono consumption is a pillar of so-called sensual freedom, that «soma» keeping peoples peacefully enslaved.

That was the article. What trinc was different: several participants claim, without proof, that the author is a regular user known for his style and jargon. «It’s him, his style gives him away», states one. Another demands direct confirmation: «JuanMa damn it, confirm you are @Icaro0». The suspicion becomes collective certainty, and the thread devolves into greetings, jokes, and settling scores.

What the article proposes and why it is debated

Prada’s text goes beyond sarracena denunciation. It enters public policy with a concrete proposal: blocking access to prono from servers, rather than creating digital certificates that, in his view, will end up being a sieve and a surrender of privacy. The underlying idea is that age verification protects no one but creates control infrastructure.

This argument finds echo in the forum. «Porn is just an excuse», claims one participant, linking age verification to a broader interest in identifying internet users. Another points out that the measure comes from a Government that simultaneously promotes minors’ sensual autonomy from their parents. The criticism is therefore not just about porn, but about the vehicle.

The most repeated response in the thread is that the law is not about prono, but about control. Here, people who agree on almost nothing else coincide.

Total block: the proposal nobody seriously discusses

The proposal to shut off the tap from servers appears in the original text and receives little technical rebuttal. One participant suggests an intermediate alternative: legally requiring all connections accessible to minors to have parental software, which already exists. The objection arrives quickly: «the kid pays and gets it unblocked».

The discussion then shifts to mobile phones. «We should ban phones until age 18», proposes one message, adding that children should play ball, run, do sports, and socialize in groups. The idea that the solution is analog, not digital, gains weight in the conversation.

Another participant moves it to the realm of responsibility: «They want to take that responsibility away from parents, and all others». The critique of the law becomes, in several messages, a critique of replacing family authority with state regulation.

Porn as symptom, not cause

Part of the thread rejects the article’s framework. «The level of a charlatan promoting pseudoscientific theories against porn», summarizes one message. The fundamental objection: attributing structural damage capacity to prono turns it into an autonomous actor, almost a subject with its own will.

Against this, another current defends that the problem is not porn itself, but the society that makes it a permanent supply. «De Prada knows life’s pleasures cannot be permanent, or they cease to be pleasures and become routine», argues one message. The idea that compulsive consumption is a form of collective numbing connects with the Huxley quote opening the article.

Some even introduce the demographic factor: if relationships are curtailed and prono offered as an escape valve, the result is an entertained population without offspring. The thesis is not developed, but noted.

Hunting the author: when style betrays

The thread’s most striking twist is not ideological, but detective-like. A message asserts, without proof, that the article’s author is a forum user and asks others to compare his jargon. «Look at his jargon and way of expressing himself. It’s him, his style gives him away», insists. The accusation repeats with variants and ends up as a running joke.

The issue mixes with content. Those defending the article are called «goody-two-shoes»; those attacking it, «offended pogre». Polarization is such that one message sums up the scene: two extremes touching closely. The discussion on prono becomes, in several stretches, subordinate to the fight over who writes what.

Irony runs through the thread. One participant asks for more articles with nods to the forum. Another jokes that the author has «70 kg» extra. And a third declares the article is not about porn, but about identification on the internet.

What remains of the debate

Beyond the noise, the thread leaves three recognizable positions. First: prono is a public health problem and the law is posturing. Second: the law is not about porn, but digital control. Third: the article is a sarracena rant without empirical basis.

None prevails. What does prevail is the suspicion that age verification will protect no one and create identification infrastructure. On this, the article’s author, several critics, and many who came only to greet coincide.

And what if the problem were not porn, but that no one seriously discusses it anymore?