> Zuckerberg famously doesn’t (didn’t?) let his children use Facebook. Perhaps everyone else should take a hint. And I think he was right to do this. But he’s

> Zuckerberg famously doesn’t (didn’t?) let his children use Facebook. Perhaps everyone else should take a hint. And I think he was right to do this. But he’s also the person who created Facebook, who allowed it to be used by children, so it’s extremely hypocritical, no? Why doesn’t he make Facebook for over 18s only? Money is why. He’ll protect his own children whilst at the same time he thinks it’s fine to harm other peoples’. He think this whilst knowing full well that not all parents are created equal and that many parents won’t (or perhaps can’t) do what is best for their children’s welfare relating to social media. And this is because he values making money more, and because he’s an out of touch and elitist manchild who refuses to take responsibility for what he’s created. So, yes, it’s Meta’s - and specifically Mark Zuckerberg’s - fault that children are exposed to harmful content, and both they and he should absolutely be held to account for it. Fundamentally social media companies are media companies. Just because it’s a new form of media doesn’t mean they should get to dodge the scrutiny and responsibilities other media companies are subject to.