Former Meta engineer says Instagram took a 'don't ask, don't tell' approach on kids under 13

A "don't ask, don't tell" policy on ten-year-olds is not a moderation strategy. It's a business model. If a former engineering director is willing to say that under oath, in front of a jury, it means the internal culture at Meta wasn't confused about what was happening. It knew. It just didn't want the paperwork.

This is the part that never seems to land with the tech press when these stories break: nobody at these companies is stupid. They build systems that can predict what ad you'll click on before you finish your coffee. The idea that the same engineering talent couldn't figure out a thirteen-year-old was actually nine doesn't pass the laugh test. They didn't ask because asking creates a record, and a record creates liability, and liability is bad for engagement numbers.

Congress has had Meta executives in front of it for years now promising reform, mostly right after some other whistleblower testified about some other internal memo nobody was supposed to see. The pattern is always the same: apologize, promise a task force, wait for the news cycle to move on. A jury actually hearing this under oath, with subpoena power and consequences attached, is a different animal than a hearing room full of senators taking selfies with tech CEOs. That's why this trial matters more than another round of congressional theater ever did.

Parents were sold a platform for teenagers and adults. What they got, by the company's own former employee's account, was a system engineered to look away. That's not an oversight. That's a choice, made by people who understood the tradeoff and decided the growth was worth it.