BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abdicates individual and collective responsibility to the state

So, it is likely that a ban will not be completely successful. This immediately creates a problem of perceptions that influences responsibility; it is transferred to the state. By banning something the state takes responsibility for it, responsibility that has previously been in the hands of parents. This is a particular problem if the ban is not completely successful. With a ban in place, but some airbrushed images still being available everyone will believe the problem is fixed. People will not be on their guard against the possibility that the image is not reality. This makes any airbrushed images that get through much more powerful in their influence on those who are impressionable around body image. People are much less likely to try and match an image they know, or suspect is fake, so taking away this wariness is damaging.    This abdication of responsibility can be taken to extremes; 39% of parents ignore age ratings on games.[1] If they have abdicated their individual responsibility to such an extent we can be sure that with a ban they would not help educate their children. [1] Adam Hartley, ‘39% of British parents ignore age-ratings on games’, TechRadar, 9 January 2010, https://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/39-of-british-parents-ignore-age-ratings-on-games-662483
Allows everyone to be perfect

Airbrushing and photoshopping of women’s bodies does have upsides. The ability to remove blemishes, or make someone a little thinner in photos helps broaden the possibilities of potential models who might not fit the image of being very thin. Being able to make slight changes means that there are a considerably larger number of people who can pursue their dreams of being involved in the modelling industry. For those who are not professional models but get the opportunity to be in a magazine or similar it provides the opportunity to look good, or on a par with the models. This can therefore have considerable psychological benefit for those who are shown as they know they will be looking their best.
Objectification of women’s bodies

Airbrushing is sometimes objectifying. But it does not have to be so. A ban is a blunt instrument; it would be banning both objectifying images and those that are art or intended to make a point. Dealing with objectification is not best done with a ban as it is a much broader issue than airbrushing. Images can objectifying without airbrushing; these would remain. This sticking plaster of a policy would therefore be downright unhelpful by merely covering up the real issue.
A ban may make the problem worse

There are advantages to allowing photoshopping of women’s bodies. The women involved may wish to remove blemishes and make themselves looks slightly thinner. Importantly the use of software to do this potentially allows almost anyone to be shown how they want to appear. People with some blemish that may rule them out of being in the media can be photoshopped thus opening up the industry. The flipside of this is that if a ban is put in place those young women who might have had opportunities in the industry will be ruled out. The media is unlikely to change immediately to wanting images of a more normal body image. This means that if photoshopping is ruled out the only option is to use really thin models. As a result, anyone who wants to be a model will have to be starving themselves to achieve the image needed to get ahead.
Leads to eating disorders and other harmful effects

Eating disorders are not just caused by perceived pressure from this societal norm. While this is one psychological factor there are also possible biological factors, nutritional deficiencies or genetics, or environmental factors such as high amounts of stress, trauma, as well as more obvious connections such as taking part in sports or professions that require the individual to be thin.[1] As such it has so far difficult to link images of very thin models to anorexia. Moreover, it is wrong to claim that this norm is solely a result of photoshopping. Thin models existed long before airbrushing of images was introduced and will continue to be used after a ban. At the same time while there are studies linking people engaging in dieting to altered ultra thin images this is not the case with specific disorders such as anorexia.[2] [1] Harvey Simon, ‘Eating Disorders’, University of Maryland Medical Centre, 8th March 2013, https://www.umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/eating-disorders [2] Carrie Arnold, ‘What’s Photoshop got to do with it?’, Psychology Today, 29th June 2011, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/body-evidence/201106/whats-photoshop-got-do-
Banning would help create a beneficial cultural shift

Cultural shifts do not usually come from bans, rather in spite of them; think of the social movements overthrowing dictatorships with the most obvious being the downfall of the Eastern Bloc. Social change is about freedom. Fortunately, social change in this area is as likely to come from airbrushing as from banning it. Airbrushing sometimes becomes very obvious – either when those doing the photoshopping go too far, or when they make a mistake often resulting in missing limbs![1] This creates a large amount of debate around photoshopping but also wider issues. This will likely make people think about the societal issues involved in a way that a ban will not; once something is banned everything will stop; ‘job done’. It is only through discussion and debate attitudes can change; far more effective over the long term, and on a broader scale, than a ban. [1] Hannah Verdier, ‘Extra thumbs! Missing legs! Strange skin! A rundown of celebrity Photoshop blunders’, The Guardian, 20 February 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/feb/20/extra-thumbs-missing-legs-strange-skin-a-rundown-of-celebrity-photoshop-blunders
Almost impossible to achieve; images will just come from elsewhere

No ban is ever perfect. The ban is not about catching and preventing or taking down absolutely every single photoshopped image. As with most laws however it will mostly be self managing; the media will stop commissioning airbrushing, and most will be happy to do so as it will save them money while they know that their competition can’t get ahead by using it. At the same time audiences, and models themselves, will help enforce the ban as they will be able to report any instances of photoshopping.
Allows everyone to be perfect

It is far better that people are encouraged to be comfortable in their own bodies rather than be encouraged to think that to be ‘perfect’ they need to be airbrushed to remove any ‘imperfections’. Getting rid of those imperfections in a photo will not change the reality so it simply seems to highlight a divide between what the individual would consider their prefect selves and the reality; something which is likely to add to any psychological pressures.
A ban may make the problem worse

When thinking of the good of society as a whole as the government should be it is better to have a tiny segment of the population suffer such effects than all young women. Should the model industry be unwilling to change and become reliant on those who are going to extremes to make themselves thin the government can take action against anything that may seem like pressurising young women to ensure equality between body sizes. But most important would be the response of readers. With a ban readers would be empowered to reject images of very thin models and demand a broader range. As readers begin to demand the pictures in the media reflect society so the model industry will respond to match those expectations rather than risk losing readership and revenue.
Objectification of women’s bodies

Airbrushing is part of the objectification – seeing something simply as an object rather than an individual – of women’s bodies; it degrades individuals treating women merely as an object, often of sexual desire.[1] Images being photoshopped is a part of this and an indicator; for any image that has been photoshopped the reason is almost certainly to make it look more attractive and sexually appealing. It is morally wrong to be using, and often making money from, images that are degrading. [1] Joy Goh-Mah, ‘The Objectification of Women – It Goes Much Further Than Sexy Pictures’, Huffpost, 6th September 2013, www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/joy-goh-mah/objectification-women-sexy-pictures_b_3403251.htm
Leads to eating disorders and other harmful effects

Photoshopping women’s bodies is not just morally wrong, it can cause real physical harm. Having ultra-thin photoshopped models helps to normalise having a body that is thin; it becomes the expected or normal thing. The readership of the media that carries these images will increasingly measure themselves against that norm that has been created in the media. In the vast majority of cases they will find themselves wanting. Many who compare themselves are likely to suffer psychologically. If young women who have a normal body compare themselves to these images they are likely to suffer from lower self-esteem. The media is a powerful influence. There will be those who attempt to match these unnaturally thin bodies leading to conditions like anorexia[1] and other eating disorders. Those who realise that they can’t match the image are often excessively influenced by culture and perceived peer pressure, the more people conform to the norm the greater the pressure from various points such as groups of friends.[2] Anorexia can be immensely harmful, it has the highest death rate of any psychiatric illness, with 20% of sufferers dying prematurely.[3] We need to do anything we can to combat it, including banning these images that encourage it. [1] ‘This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa’, Debatabase, https://uk.idebate.org/debatabase/culture-modern-culture-health-disease-health-general-weight/house-would-force-feed [2] K.Jean Kleimeyer, and Rose Marie Ward, ‘Social norms, body dissatisfaction, and eating disorders’, Miami University, https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=muhonors1303224657&disposition=inline, p.6 [3] ‘Statistics for Journalists’, Beat Eating Disorders, https://www.beateatingdisorders.org.uk/media-centre/eating-disorder-statistics
Would give women the opportunity to speak out

A ban would act as an enabler. When women see that they have been photoshopped in some way they would be able to speak out against the photographers and editors who have done this to them. In the status quo the media and their representatives have all the power; if the model wants the work they have to accept that they may be photoshopped to the media outlet’s preferences. They can’t speak out as they want to be employed again in future. However, if there is a ban on such images there will be far less pressure to conform, any women involved will be far more likely to speak out and report such alterations to their image.
Banning would help create a beneficial cultural shift

A ban sends a signal about the need for change to a more open culture that is less misogynistic, less objectifying, and more equal. It will encourage positive behaviours; more realism, more body diversity, and healthier attitudes to the female body. With airbrushing banned the media will be forced to show a wider range which then gives a better idea of what is normal. This in turn will have beneficial effects reducing pressure to ‘be attractive’ even at the cost of health and increasing women’s self confidence something which would increase equality and ensure women are taken more seriously.
Freedom of Expression

Everyone should have the right to express themselves as they wish. In the case of airbrushing the photos involve both expression by the photographer, and by the model who was photographed. Airbrushing is used in all sorts of situations in photography. We would not consider banning landscape photographers from editing out an inconvenient pylon, nor would we seek to ban the use of black and white photos or filters for dramatic effect. These are doing the same thing; making a photo more attractive through editing.
There is no feasible transition path to a world government model

Some eminent international relations authorities have argued that no feasible transition path of a benign nature exists from the present situation of national sovereignty, to a world government. A nuclear world war might change this situation: such a war might so shock and horrify the global human population that it will turn to world govern­ment in desperation. This outcome is possible, of course, but it is equally possible that after a nuclear Armageddon had occurred, the scattered and demoralized survivors would be neither capable of nor interested in world government. Quite likely the surface of the world would become sub-divided into a host of autonomous principalities presided over by dictatorial war lords. It would seem that in a post-nuclear war world, there would be just as much chance of severe political fragmentation taking place as there is of further political consolidation.
A world government would enhance the probability of mitigating global environmental problems

Although the problems of resource depletion and environmental deterioration are indeed serious global problems, it is unreasonably optimistic and idealistic to believe that a world government, in and of itself, would be an effective instrument toward the reduction of these problems. The world government would likely promulgate resource use and environmental protection policies that would be acceptable to some countries, but totally unacceptable to other countries. Another consideration is that in a fundamental sense, resource depletion and environmental deterioration are caused by rapid population growth. A world government might try to control population growth by such draconic means as the notorious “one child” policy in the People’s Republic of China. This would be totally unacceptable to a very large majority of the contemporary human population.
There are successful precedents for supra-national bodies

The basic flaw in this argument is that throughout modern history. Western Europe has always been far more homogeneous, in terms of economics and culture, than the world as a whole is at the present time. The immense human and material losses of World War I and World War II created a far more intense motivation in the post-war era toward change than exists at the present time over all the nations of the world, since most nations today have not experienced the horrors of war at first hand for a very long time.  Moreover, in the aftermath of World War II, the Western European nations were motivated to a higher level of harmony and mutual cooperation owing to the fear that if they did not cooperate, they would become mere pawns in the strategic and potentially deadly game being played between the United States and the Soviet Union.
A world government would be ineffective in practice

There is no doubt that the processes of global governance have improved since the decline of the Cold War in the early 1990s as a result of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union. But it is unduly naïve to suggest, as do some global governance enthusiasts, that the United Nations and other international institutions amount to a virtual global government that is as effective as an actual world government would be. Close examination of actual events at the international level shows that national interests tend to trump global interests again and again. As for “baby step” proposals such as the Global Parliamentary Assembly, these are uninspired and uninspiring. So long as the UN General Assembly (or its equivalent) remains a purely consultative body confined to issuing resolutions with no power of enforcement, then it makes very little difference whether its members are elected by the national populations, or appointed by the national governments. A full-fledged world government, as an institutional reality with legislative, executive and judicial branches, the high officials of which would be directly elected by the global constituency, would constitute a quantum leap forward that would excite the human imagination. So long as it is properly limited according to the more recent, post-Cold War world federalist proposals, it would not constitute a meaningful threat to the legitimate national interests of the member nations.
The forces of nationalism are too strong to permit the loosening of state sovereignty any further

While it cannot be denied that interest in world government is currently at a low ebb, among both the general public and international relations professionals, it is arguable that a principal reason for this is relatively low familiarity with alternatives to the “omnipotent world state” concept developed in the immediate aftermath of World War II. In time, as greater familiarity develops with the more recent proposals for a limited federal world government being developed by the younger generation of world federalists, the situation might change. The more recent proposals envision a world government that would exercise far less power and authority relative to the member nations than would the omnipotent world government of earlier, “old-fashioned” world federalist thought. There would be far less likelihood of these newer blueprints leading to unmanageable conflicts between national interests and global interests.
A world government would reduce the probability of a catastrophic nuclear world war

Ever since the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during the closing days of World War II, the threat of global devastation through nuclear world war has hung over human civilization like a Damocles’ sword. The threat of global nuclear destruction peaked during the most perilous years of the Cold War during the 1950s through the 1970s, and it gradually subsided thereafter. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, many people came to believe that the threat has entirely disappeared. But this is false complacency. Although national arsenals of nuclear-tipped ICBMs have declined in the two decades since the end of the Cold War, they still exist at levels that would cause unimaginable death and destruction were they unleashed in a world war. The history of human civilization throughout the ages demonstrates the strong propensity among human beings toward hostility, violence and warfare—whatever the potential cost. As long as the international political system is based upon the sovereignty of nation-states, the threat of nuclear world war will always be there.
A world government would enhance the probability of mitigating global environmental problems

A world government would enhance the probability that effective means will be developed and implemented toward ameliorating the global problems of resource depletion and environmental decay. In a world divided into a host of jealously independent and self-righteously sovereign nations, national leaders tend to point the finger of blame for these problems at other nations, and to resist international efforts toward resource conservation and environmental preservation. As the mutual accusations and recriminations go on and on, the problems are left to fester. If a world government existed, it might muster sufficient respect and possess sufficient authority to enable the nations to arrive at a workable consensus on how to share equitably the short-term costs and inconveniences necessary to securing long-term sustainability of resources and preservation of environmental quality.
There are successful precedents for supra-national bodies

The history of the European Union (EU) in the post-World War II era provides an encouraging example of what might be done at the global level through a functioning world government. It is widely agreed among economists that the relatively high degree of prosperity and security enjoyed today by the people of the Western European nations is in no small measure the result of the gradual evolution from the original limited-purpose, six-member European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) to the general-purpose, 27-member EU of today. In the early 1940s, many of the EU nations of today were locked in devastating warfare. The fact that these same nations are today harmonious components of a quasi-state polity demonstrates the capability of people to change their customary modes of thought and behavior when there exists a sufficient incentive to do so.
A world government would be ineffective in practice

From the early 1990s, at about the time of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has developed an immense literature on global governance in the post-Cold War era. It is agreed by many if not most international relations authorities that the existing institutions of global governance, comprising the United Nations and several others, are achieving as much as can reasonably be expected given the extreme diversity of the contemporary global human population, its widely differing perceptions, viewpoints, and policy preferences. If this diversity is hampering efforts to improve the global human prospect, this is unfortunate, but there is no reason to expect that a formal world government would not be similarly hampered. Furthermore, significant improvements can be made, such as the proposed Global Parliamen­tary Assembly (GPA) that would convert or replace the UN General Assembly with a directly elected assembly—without going to the premature extreme of full-fledged world government. Many other ideas short of world government were offered by the Commission on Global Governance of the early 1990s. Many of these are viable and attractive options for making progress without an excessively risky departure from the status quo. Thus there is no need to make a reckless giant step into world government, when there are more cautious baby steps that could be taken toward improving international harmony and cooperation.
The forces of nationalism are too strong to permit the loosening of state sovereignty any further

The force of nationalism is so strong in the contemporary world that no national population will be willing to turn over any substantial part of its national sovereignty and autonomy to a world government. There is too much apprehension among the great majority of people around the world that a world government would promulgate and enforce policies that would disadvantage their specific national interests. Most opinion leaders and national government officials believe that they have a vested interest in the status quo. One evidence that interest in world government has declined to a vestigial level is that the World Federalist Association (WFA), which was quite active throughout the Cold War, was recently absorbed by Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), an organization principally devoted to preserving and supporting the United Nations, and which studiously avoids any mention of world government in its literature.
Economic globalization suggests the need for political globalization

Just as a high degree of reliance upon free economic markets was instrumental to the growing prosperity in the modern era of the First World nations, so too a free economic market at the international level would tend to enhance the growth and development of a strong world economy. As for national government anti-cyclical policy, although it is clearly justified in crisis conditions of deep depression or hyperinfla­tion, too often in the past it has been applied injudiciously, so that it aggravates rather than ameliorates cyclical swings. Owing to the various lags in policy determination and implementation described by the famous economist Milton Friedman, often expansionary policy takes full effect in boom periods, while contractionary policy takes full effect in recession periods. This problem might well hold at the global level if there were a world government in existence attempting to apply world anticyclical policy. To the extent that the world government ventures beyond anticyclical policy into the realm of overall regulation and control of the business economy, it is likely to repeat and amplify the self-evident errors and excesses the national governments have made in this area.