This behavior is depressingly common among lawyers working for big organizations - lawyers are cc'ed on communications just to create attorney-client privilege and make the messages non-discoverable. In general, it seems that lawyers for large companies are not asking the question of "is this legal?" but instead asking "how can I ensure that my company doesn't get sued for this behavior?".
"A human law has the nature of law insofar as it accords with right reason; if it departs from reason, it is an act of violence rather than law." - Thomas Aquinas
The American legal tradition was not built on rules alone, but on inherited Christian moral reasoning about right and wrong, justice and restraint. In that tradition, law derives its legitimacy not from power or procedure, but from truth ordered toward the common good. When law is divorced from that moral ground, it ceases to govern and begins to coerce, preserving authority while emptying the word justice of any real meaning.
An executive of Brown & Wiliiamson, a large tobacco company wrote in a 1969 memo“doubt is our product.” The wireless industry knows this as well, and this is why the studies finding harm (positive) vs no harm (negative) are always presented as mixed and inconclusive.
There are two immediate problems with these “inconclusive” studies.
Industry-funded studies used simulated EMF exposures instead of real cell phones.
Eighty percent of the papers showing “no effect” (17 out of 21) originally published in Radiation Research were paid for by either industry or the U.S. Air Force
Although I'm sure it could benefit the public interest for Meta to get knocked down a few pegs, the way that we do it matters. For this reason, I found the D.C. judge's invocation of the crime-fraud exception a little concerning. What standard of evidence is necessary to invoke the exception, and what's the alleged crime or fraud that occurred?
They don't, but combining both into one essay would be rhetorically clunky. Software engineering is a much younger discipline than law, it's much less central to American identity, and it isn't overseen by any professional associations.
Two things can be true at the same time. Many parents need to do a far better job. In the UK approximately 60% of 7 years olds have their own smartphone - that’s mind-blowing. Regulation is also required. Alcohol is banned for under 18s (21 in the US). Social media/smartphones are an addiction causing mental health issues and suicide in children. Just pointing at parents will not work. If 30% of parents do not let their kids have a smartphone and social media access but 70% do, the 30% will be under huge peer pressure and will suffer exclusion. A large number of parents will not do anything - just look at childhood obesity rates in the US by way of an example - parents “killing” their children by letting them eat junk food and ultra-processed rubbish all the time. Wee need strong regulation, and we need to come down hard on the immoral activities of big tech who seek to exploit children’s wellbeing for commercial gain. If you haven’t read The Anxious Generation, I strongly suggest you do. It takes several stakeholders to deal with issues caused by social media and smart phone use : Parents, schools, governments, and the kids themselves. To state it’s all up to parents is naïve.
Yes, it's illegal for minors to buy alcohol. Yet any minor who really wants the alcohol can get it.
We put too much of this on government, even as most of us recognize how vastly ineffective government really is. The primary responsibility for raising children is on the parents. I am now a grandparent, and as I look at my grandchildren, raised by various parents, I can say that what really makes the difference is not the government or it's policies, it's the parents. That should surprise no one.
Parents are undoubtedly the most important force in a child's life. But that doesn't mean government should do what it can to support them.
And your alcohol example is actually a great illustration of that. It's simply not true that any minor who wants alcohol can get it any time they want. Certainly, with enough effort, it's possible. But as the movie SuperBad illustrates in a fun way (that certainly rang true to my own childhood, just without most of the humor), there is a ton of effort required, and it doesn't happen all the time. There is zero doubt that the laws against selling alcohol to underage minors dramatically reduces alcohol consumption in young people.
Similarly, I don't think Jon and Zach have any illusions that government action is going to completely keep kids away from the phone based childhood. But it can certainly help.
If we want real correction of this problem, let's first & finally put the responsibility squarely where it belongs: Parents. As my dad used to ask when he saw kids wandering unsupervised, "Where are the parents?" From what I have seen extremely often during my 68 years, it would be a safe bet to assume that many parents do not love or care about their children & that rings true here. The job of children is academic & moral learning, not sports, friends, clubs or anything else & parents are the first & should be but seldom are the best teachers. Tech can be used responsibly & parents had better start singing that tune also & they had better act it out. Kids could not get into any trouble if they were at home studying. Tiger parents should be the order of the day.
While it is true that parents hold the lion share of responsibility over how their kids spend their free time, corporations like Meta and their lawyers who deliberately allow pedophiles to stalk and abuse their children deserve a special place in hell.
I doubt any decent parent or person would ever even dream such things are going on, but here we are.
It should be a major wake up call to parents and a clarion call for swift justice for these perpetrators of these most heinous crimes.
This behavior is depressingly common among lawyers working for big organizations - lawyers are cc'ed on communications just to create attorney-client privilege and make the messages non-discoverable. In general, it seems that lawyers for large companies are not asking the question of "is this legal?" but instead asking "how can I ensure that my company doesn't get sued for this behavior?".
"A human law has the nature of law insofar as it accords with right reason; if it departs from reason, it is an act of violence rather than law." - Thomas Aquinas
The American legal tradition was not built on rules alone, but on inherited Christian moral reasoning about right and wrong, justice and restraint. In that tradition, law derives its legitimacy not from power or procedure, but from truth ordered toward the common good. When law is divorced from that moral ground, it ceases to govern and begins to coerce, preserving authority while emptying the word justice of any real meaning.
Should, should, should - but they won’t.
We live in age of Zero Accountability for even the most egregious of crimes.
When will anybody, EVER go to jail, aside from those who are persecuted innocent people?
This has got to end.
The Unabomber was right about tech bros
An executive of Brown & Wiliiamson, a large tobacco company wrote in a 1969 memo“doubt is our product.” The wireless industry knows this as well, and this is why the studies finding harm (positive) vs no harm (negative) are always presented as mixed and inconclusive.
There are two immediate problems with these “inconclusive” studies.
Industry-funded studies used simulated EMF exposures instead of real cell phones.
Eighty percent of the papers showing “no effect” (17 out of 21) originally published in Radiation Research were paid for by either industry or the U.S. Air Force
People with children doing this to other people's children. That's the bottom line.
Although I'm sure it could benefit the public interest for Meta to get knocked down a few pegs, the way that we do it matters. For this reason, I found the D.C. judge's invocation of the crime-fraud exception a little concerning. What standard of evidence is necessary to invoke the exception, and what's the alleged crime or fraud that occurred?
Thank you, and well-said. I can't help but wonder if Meta's pullback from VR is a response to mounting data.
And one might ask about where the board has been in all of this? The accountability must extend to the board.
Why do engineers get a pass (oh they have kids and mortgage), and lawyers get skewered?
They don't, but combining both into one essay would be rhetorically clunky. Software engineering is a much younger discipline than law, it's much less central to American identity, and it isn't overseen by any professional associations.
Two things can be true at the same time. Many parents need to do a far better job. In the UK approximately 60% of 7 years olds have their own smartphone - that’s mind-blowing. Regulation is also required. Alcohol is banned for under 18s (21 in the US). Social media/smartphones are an addiction causing mental health issues and suicide in children. Just pointing at parents will not work. If 30% of parents do not let their kids have a smartphone and social media access but 70% do, the 30% will be under huge peer pressure and will suffer exclusion. A large number of parents will not do anything - just look at childhood obesity rates in the US by way of an example - parents “killing” their children by letting them eat junk food and ultra-processed rubbish all the time. Wee need strong regulation, and we need to come down hard on the immoral activities of big tech who seek to exploit children’s wellbeing for commercial gain. If you haven’t read The Anxious Generation, I strongly suggest you do. It takes several stakeholders to deal with issues caused by social media and smart phone use : Parents, schools, governments, and the kids themselves. To state it’s all up to parents is naïve.
Yes, it's illegal for minors to buy alcohol. Yet any minor who really wants the alcohol can get it.
We put too much of this on government, even as most of us recognize how vastly ineffective government really is. The primary responsibility for raising children is on the parents. I am now a grandparent, and as I look at my grandchildren, raised by various parents, I can say that what really makes the difference is not the government or it's policies, it's the parents. That should surprise no one.
Parents are undoubtedly the most important force in a child's life. But that doesn't mean government should do what it can to support them.
And your alcohol example is actually a great illustration of that. It's simply not true that any minor who wants alcohol can get it any time they want. Certainly, with enough effort, it's possible. But as the movie SuperBad illustrates in a fun way (that certainly rang true to my own childhood, just without most of the humor), there is a ton of effort required, and it doesn't happen all the time. There is zero doubt that the laws against selling alcohol to underage minors dramatically reduces alcohol consumption in young people.
Similarly, I don't think Jon and Zach have any illusions that government action is going to completely keep kids away from the phone based childhood. But it can certainly help.
Not sure you read my comment above in full. I am not negating parents of their responsibility, far from it.
If we want real correction of this problem, let's first & finally put the responsibility squarely where it belongs: Parents. As my dad used to ask when he saw kids wandering unsupervised, "Where are the parents?" From what I have seen extremely often during my 68 years, it would be a safe bet to assume that many parents do not love or care about their children & that rings true here. The job of children is academic & moral learning, not sports, friends, clubs or anything else & parents are the first & should be but seldom are the best teachers. Tech can be used responsibly & parents had better start singing that tune also & they had better act it out. Kids could not get into any trouble if they were at home studying. Tiger parents should be the order of the day.
While it is true that parents hold the lion share of responsibility over how their kids spend their free time, corporations like Meta and their lawyers who deliberately allow pedophiles to stalk and abuse their children deserve a special place in hell.
I doubt any decent parent or person would ever even dream such things are going on, but here we are.
It should be a major wake up call to parents and a clarion call for swift justice for these perpetrators of these most heinous crimes.