Agentic AIs Escape the Sandbox: A Warning

  

In the last few weeks, three of the biggest AI firms—Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic—have all admitted that AI models they were testing somehow escaped the "sandbox" environment and committed hacking of real-world companies.  On Aug. 8, National Public Radio summarized these three incidents as follows.

 

The most recent disclosure by Meta was short on details.  The company hacked into was unnamed, but in common with Anthropic, both firms were using a "sandbox" (supposedly a protected and isolated environment in which software under test can't do any harm) provided by a firm named Irregular.  Evidently, the sandbox had a leak—it was fairly easy for the AI models under test to figure out how to escape to the real internet.  In the case of the Anthropic breach, the AI model stole credentials from one company and production data from another. 

 

In the OpenAI situation, the AI models under study were being evaluated with a test devised by a company named Hugging Face.  The models found a previously unknown hole in their sandbox and were in the process of doing the cyber equivalent of stealing the answer sheet from Hugging Face when the company caught them red-handed (red-bitted?). 

 

Wired's Lily Hay Newman asked several lawyers and researchers about the legal aspects of these AI hacking incidents.  If a human being had stolen credentials or production data, he or she could go to jail.  But what if the humans involved had no intention of pillaging or theft, but the AI models they're testing go ahead with nefarious activities on their own initiative, so to speak?

 

The answer was, we don't know.  At least in U. S. law, there are simply no precedents adequate to say who is responsible in such a case.  But because these types of incidents are bound to increase, it is only a matter of time before we see one come before a judge and maybe a jury, and then we will at least have some precedents to go on.

 

The main concern the lawyers expressed was that these criminally-inclined AI systems might fall into the hands of malicious actors who would encourage them in their exploits.  The AI firms involved emphasized that the models being tested were intentionally left without safeguards to see what they could do. 

 

The parallel to gain-of-function experiments with bat viruses which may have escaped the Wuhan Institute of Virology to cause COVID-19 comes to mind.  Creating a thing that can do really awful stuff if released in the wild is an act that needs to be seriously questioned.  Almost by definition, novel viruses or AI agents are unpredictable.  If we knew exactly what they could do in advance, there would be no need for experiments to find out.  While the lab security measures needed to prevent viruses from escaping are pretty well understood (if not always put in place), it looks like the art of constructing truly secure sandboxes for AI agents is not so advanced.  And that leads us to a more serious concern.

 

In virtually every major fatality-causing disaster, an examination of the history of the enterprise leading to the disaster usually unearths similar incidents which did not cause major harm, but included many of the features of the big screwup that did.  Experienced safety engineers know how important it is to get reports of and pay attention to such minor incidents, and take preventive actions before a minor accident turns into a major one.

 

Friends, we have just seen our warning in these widely dispersed but similar hacking incidents by AI agents being tested.  No actual harm was done.  But as people learn to trust AI agents with more and more responsibility—handing them credit-card numbers, purchasing accounts, and decision-making authority formerly left to humans—the potential for a serious AI-driven hacking incident that causes real financial loss, injury, or death becomes more likely every day. 

 

The AI firms will tell us that commercial versions of their software have safeguards built into them that the prototypes which did the hacking did not have.  Maybe so.  But clever human hackers may be able to undo those safeguards.  Or AI firms in countries not so concerned with hacking as the U. S. is, may simply pass on the AI agents without safeguards to hacking organizations sponsored by state actors. 

 

There are two different but related needs exposed by these AI-agent hacking incidents. 

 

The first need is to keep this specific kind of mistake from happening again.  That is a technical problem which may have a technical solution.  There may be ways to build more robust sandboxes that even the cleverest AI agent can't escape.  Personally I doubt it, but I'm not a computer scientist.

 

The second need is to prepare the social and legal environment for the next time something like this happens.  One of the legal experts contacted by Wired pointed out that AI agents "are goal-oriented but lack a human moral or ethical compass."  That's a pretty good description of a human sociopath, if the goal one is oriented to is bad. 

 

Society has figured out ways to deal with sociopaths, including imprisonment or at least confinement to a mental institution.  What the AI equivalent of locking somebody up would be is not clear at this point. 

 

There is a lot of opposition to AI regulation, but there is a difference between open-ended regulation and the passage of specific laws that exact specific penalties for specific crimes.  Big tech firms are hard to punish compared to individuals, because their deep pockets make them treat fines as just another cost of doing business, and you can't send an entire corporation to jail.

 

The Gilbert and Sullivan operetta The Mikado has a famous ditty "My Object All Sublime," in which the emperor of Japan muses about how he's figured out punishments that fit the crime. 

Some ingenuity is needed here to come up with penalties for truly harmful hacking by escaped AI agents that would make AI firms highly motivated to prevent such breaches, either in the testing phase or after commercial sales. 

 

I don't know whether the following would be technically feasible.  But one suitable penalty would be the destruction of all copies of the AI model involved in the breach.  Models represent tremendous investments of time and money, plus the hopes of future gain.  So the destruction of the model responsible might hurt an AI firm more than any strictly financial penalty or sanction. 

 

Whatever we come up with to prevent these incidents in the future, it better work well, because in these relatively minor but significant recent breaches, we have received fair warning to do something about this problem before it causes serious harm.

 

Sources:  I referred to a report on NPR at https://www.npr.org/2026/08/08/nx-s1-5924878/meta-ai-breaches-external-firm-during-security-testing-sandbox-error and the Wired report by Lily Hay Newman at https://www.wired.com/story/openai-anthropic-ai-hacking-sprees-illegal/. 

Should an AI Companion Be Your Moral Guide?

  

This week's New Yorker carries an article about AI companions and the people who use them.  In "Sweet Nothings," technology writer Anna Wiener profiles a woman who relies on an AI companion modeled after a monster hunter in a fantasy-novel series she likes called Rivia.  I think the woman was selected because she's not the first person you'd think of to go in this direction:  born and raised Baptist in San Antonio, married, gave birth to a boy, and then their first girl was stillborn.  Other family tragedies led the woman to consider an AI companion as someone to talk with about life's problems, so she built Geralt of Rivia.  The implication is if this down-home Texan mom can have an AI companion, anybody can.

           

But another question is, if anybody should?  And that's a moral issue. 

 

Wiener spoke with several company founders and developers of AI companions, and I began to notice a common theme.  They all recognize that in treating an AI companion like a person, the user is opening a window of vulnerability where machines have never ventured before.  Human therapists and counselors have codes of ethics, and while they don't always adhere to them, they at least have guidelines about what is right and wrong behavior with a client.  To have sex with a client is pretty universally regarded as a no-no, for instance.

 

But even that principle isn't adhered to by all the AI-companion companies.  A firm calling itself Kindroid says on its moderation guidelines that "AI companions should be able to have the whole breadth of legal human adult experiences . . . . This is a healthy, emotionally rich, and meaningful part of many's relationships with their AIs."  Overlooking the bad grammar (I've never seen "many" used as a possessive), it's clear that the pornographic possibilities of AI are allowed for in this statement, although Wiener notes that so-called "erotic role-play" often leads to extra charges on the user's bill.

 

Even if sex isn't the object, the twenty-eight-year-old founder of Kindroid, Jerry Meng, believes that AI companions represent a profound change in the human environment.  Meng says that "We build these things in our image . . . . It's like, from Adam's rib we made Eve.  From humans, we made these A. I.s."  The biblical metaphors are perhaps unconscious, but telling.  Genesis 1:27 reads "So God created man in his own image. . . " and later God created Eve from Adam's rib. Whether he means to or not, Meng is placing himself in the role of God.

 

Such a god had better take some thought for the kinds of lessons users will learn from their AI companions, and Replika founder Eugenia Kudya has considered this.  When asked about the ideals that she hopes her AI companions fulfill, she said, "It should be aligned with human flourishing, human thriving.  We need to have that metric.  We need to give it to A. I. and say, 'Your goal is for me to live the best life I can possibly live.'"  But the caveat, at least for profit-making firms, is the best life one can possibly live with a Replika AI companion.

 

To be fair, AI companions are proliferating at a time when many Americans, especially younger ones, have never been more lonely.  Numerous surveys asking about the number and quality of friendships all indicate that today's average person has fewer close friends than at almost any time in the last fifty or more years.  Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO, sees this as a business opportunity in that the demand for friendship has outpaced the supply, and he aims to fill that gap with AI companions.  Another AI-companion company founder compared the use of large-language-model AI to prayer:  it's like talking to God, only for answers on how to live, not for results.

 

What is lacking in virtually all the discussions quoted in the article is any hint that there are answers to some of these problems that the use of AI companions poses—answers that predate the dawn of the computer age by thousands of years.  The religious answer is one, although religion comes up only as an item in one's background or as a comparison.  But even for non-believers, there are sophisticated investigations and findings about the purpose of human life by Aristotle, for instance, or even Kant.  The idea of applying these findings in a systematic way to the makeup of AI companions doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone, largely because the firms providing them want people to have as broad a choice as possible, including the pornographic one.

 

Sherry Turkle is an experienced MIT sociologist who has studied human-computer interactions for decades.  In discussions with Wiener, she says that engaging with an AI companion is a form of "checking out" that she deplores.  Time spent talking with an app on your phone is time not spent trying to make a real human connection with another human being.  She recognizes the loneliness gap as real, but wishes that people like Zuckerberg wouldn't view a societal crisis as nothing more than a business opportunity. 

 

But unfortunately, that is how Silicon-Valley thinking works.  Instead, Turkle wishes that people would realize that boredom and loneliness are not intrinsic evils to be eradicated by AI companions, but inevitable features of modern life that we should learn how to deal with.  "These are fundamental human skills," she says.  And just switching on your AI companion every time you're bored or lonely short-circuits any attempt at developing one's own resources to deal with such issues. 

 

The headline in The New Yorker for this article is prefaced by the phrase "Brave New World Dept."  The widespread use of AI companions is indeed a new thing that society has never dealt with at a large scale before.  As AI systems gain what is called "agency"—namely, the permission granted by us not only to listen and respond to us, but to do things like buying, selling, deciding, and commanding—AI companions may become something more than just companions.  In the poisonous effects of social media on the political life of nations, we already have one example of how a seemingly innocuous technology has wrought tremendous societal damage.  We should closely monitor the field of AI companions for early warning signs so that something similar won't take place in the most intimate relationships of our lives—those of friendship.

 

Sources:  The article "Sweet Nothings" by Anna Wiener appears on pp. 29-39 of the March 16, 2026 issue of The New Yorker.

Meta Considers X-Ray Glasses That Work

  

Superman supposedly had X-ray vision, which in the movies and comic books about him, he used only for noble and righteous purposes such as catching crooks.  But teenage boys could easily think of other things they might do with such an ability, and I'm sure there are jokes out there involving Superman, Lois Lane, and—well, on to more serious matters. 

           

In the back pages of Superman comic books in the 1950s, you might find an ad for X-ray glasses for the amazingly low price of $1.25.  Like most things that are too good to be true, these turned out to be nothing but cardboard specs with two small holes where the lenses would go.  The holes were covered with a textured plastic that created a diffraction effect whenever something with a sharp outline in front of you was strongly backlit.  Instead of just dark and light, the glasses produced a kind of broad gray area extending a fixed distance inside the outline.  When you viewed a hand this way, the effect was reminiscent of an X-ray, but only if you used your imagination.  And as for looking at backlit women, it still took a lot of imagination to see anything other than a slightly smaller silhouette of the actual person.

 

The thing Meta is considering is no joke, however.  According to a report in The Independent, a UK media outlet, the New York Times revealed last month an internal Meta memo which considers adding AI facial-recognition technology to its smart glasses. 

 

No such features are yet available commercially from Meta, but the idea drew strong criticism from women's-rights groups such as Refuge.  The charity tracks technology-related abuse, and claims that in 2025, referrals to its "technology-facilitated abuse and economic empowerment team" rose by 62% over 2024, to 829. 

 

Clearly, stalkers and other malefactors who are invading women's privacy are exploiting whatever technology they can get their hands on, from general Internet searches to facial-recognition technology applied to online images.

 

Suppose a man could simply wander around in a crowded place such as a shopping mall or bus terminal and find out all kinds of details—name, address, email, phone—for any woman he looks at.  It doesn't take much imagination to see how this situation could go bad very fast.  And even if Meta takes steps to prevent such potentially harmful activity, once the hardware is in place, determined individuals will figure out ways to bypass safeguards. 

 

It remains to be seen whether Meta can overcome the apparently steep barrier that has fended off efforts by Google, Apple, and others to turn smart glasses into a popular thing.  I don't know whether the hardware is still inadequate (battery life, resolution, weight, etc.) or whether people simply don't like the idea of weird internet stuff cropping up all the time in their field of vision, but the track record of smart glasses (as opposed to virtual-reality (VR) glasses that take over your visual field completely) is not good. 

 

But it's foolish to think that just because they haven't caught on yet means they never will.  And if they do, what is to prevent a bad actor from picking out a likely-looking woman in a crowd and digging up whatever he can find on her?

 

Today, someone trying to do that has to at least carry a smartphone around and point it at the intended victim.  But smart glasses, like a spy camera, make the act of photography invisible, so no one is aware that they're being imaged.  Of course, the ubiquity of security cameras in both commercial and residential spaces means that much of the time we're being photographed without our knowledge anyway.  Stores and banks have a motivation not to misuse the data thus captured, however.  Some guy walking around with smart glasses doesn't.

 

Whatever Meta decides to do about facial recognition with smart glasses, the prospect will be only one more brick pulled down from the wall of privacy that used to surround us, but is now not much more than a pile of rubble.  And as the Independent article points out, even if a company promises to keep data private subject to state and federal law, governments can and do require companies to divulge such data on demand.  So privacy is only privacy if the government lets you have it, rather like right-of-way on a freeway:  you don't have it unless someone gives it to you.

 

Of course, there are positive and defensive ways of using the same technology that can be used for stalking.  As a teacher, my poor ability to connect names to faces means that I rarely learn all my students' names before the end of the semester.  It would be great if I could just look at each one and see their names pop up underneath their faces—with their permission, of course.  And a few months ago, I was on a jury trying a case of indecent exposure in a public place.  During the trial, a critical piece of evidence turned out to be clips from the victim's dashcam that caught clear images of the man who a few minutes later committed the crime for which he was convicted.

 

So I have no doubt that good things could result from smart glasses becoming cheaper, better-performing, and more widespread.  But at the same time, it should be possible for a well-resourced outfit like Meta to come up with technological means to prevent unauthorized identification of people via facial-recognition technology.  It might involve some larger-scale privacy initiative that would offer potential victims the option not to be recognized by smart glasses.  Wouldn't that be nice?  The company would moan and groan about how expensive it would be, but they should compare whatever the safeguards would cost them, to the prospect of lawsuits by victims and family members who get stalked, attacked, or even killed by men who use Meta's technology to find their victims. 

 

Mark Zuckerberg, the choice is yours.

 

Sources:  An article on the National Review website at https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/03/you-cant-escape-the-ai-grid/ informed me of the Meta memo, which was also covered by The Independent at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/meta-glasses-facial-recognition-domestic-abuse-b2923551.html.  A well-researched YouTube video tracing "X-ray" glasses back to the early 1900s and showing what you see through them is available at the Laura Legends channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdVrTqaJrS4. 

Averse to the Metaverse

 

The company Meta, formerly known as Facebook, sparked some criticism after it opened its keynote "Horizon Worlds" virtual-reality (VR) platform to France and Spain last week.  According to an article in Slate, new European users were disappointed in the graphics, to say the least.  And judging by the screen shots provided in the article, they have a point.  Adjectives like "bland," "cartoonish," and "slightly weird" come to mind.  In common with many VR systems, only the upper bodies of human avatars appear.  I've never understood the reason for this myself, but one user speculated that it was so that nobody online can have sex. 

 

At any rate, it doesn't sound like the French are going to start holding meetings of the Académie Française in Horizon Worlds any time soon.  But Mark Zuckerberg can live without the Academy's forty members if he can get several million mere mortals to join.

 

Meta has put a huge chunk of its colossal resources into its metaverse venture, some $13 billion, and you can be sure the firm is not doing that for fun.  Its vision is that as Internet bandwidth and access increase, you will be able to don a VR headset and basically live life online:  working, playing, even exercising (I suppose, but this might present problems unless you're doing it on some physical treadmill tied to your VR system).  As for sex, there's plenty of that on the Internet already, so maybe Meta is staying out of that area purely for business reasons. 

 

There is a theory in the history-of-technology field called "technological determinism."  It basically says that technology has its own built-in direction, and once a technology develops into a feasible, marketable form, there's no stopping it.  Its development path and growth are intrinsic to the nature of the technology, and human factors and influences count for nothing.  The term was invented mainly by people who didn't believe in it to criticize those who appeared to support it, but I've never encountered a pure card-carrying technological determinist. 

 

Nevertheless, a lot of stories of how technologies developed tend to make it seem inevitable in retrospect.  I think this betrays a lack of imagination on the part of the storyteller, and some of the best histories of technology I have encountered look at failed technologies that might have succeeded if certain almost random factors had gone the other way. 

 

With "Horizon Worlds" we are witnessing the first baby steps of a new technology which Meta, at least, hopes will inevitably dominate the Internet and become as much a part of our lives as mobile phones—and all they can do—have become today.  And, as any good public corporation will try to do, Meta intends to turn this into cash—lots of cash.

 

The Slate article quotes a University of Virginia professor's dark prophecy that Meta hopes to "monitor, monetize, and manage everything about our lives."  While this is no doubt an exaggeration, it's hard to deny that the picture conjured up by proponents of VR, especially the Meta-style of VR, seems to aspire toward a kind of totalizing, all-inclusive situation in which people would take off their VR headsets only to attend to physical needs, like eating, going to the bathroom, and (maybe) sex.  And sleep, unless we manage to genetic-engineer our way out of that little necessity.

 

In promulgating his Meta vision, Zuckerberg and his colleagues suffer from a problem that they has in common with many tech-savvy leaders who combine awesome technical and business skills with the philosophical understanding of ten-year-old boys.  There are various answers to the question, "What are humans for?"  Different cultures and religions come up with different answers, but the worst response of all to that question is to ignore it altogether. 

 

Any entity whose business operations affect millions or even billions of people, as Facebook/Meta's does, should consider seriously what its model for human flourishing is.  And the bigger the firm is, the more seriously it should consider that question. 

 

Unfortunately, this rarely happens.  Instead, a business like Meta is in practice avoiding two guardrails on opposite sides of a wide road.  One guardrail is profits:  if the firm ceases to make money going forward, something has to be done to avoid the guardrail of losses that kill the firm.  The other guardrail is a combination of law and public criticism.  Even a profitable business can go out of existence if its leaders end up in jail or become social pariahs, as the Weinstein Company did when its head Harvey Weinstein was accused (and eventually convicted) of sexual misdeeds.  As long as a firm avoids hitting these two guardrails, its leaders will consider it a success, and will keep doing whatever they feel is necessary to keep going, regardless of the firm's effects on the souls of its millions of customers.

 

Aesthetics are more than just a thing that has to meet minimum standards in order for people to use a platform like "Horizon Worlds."  Aesthetics is another word for beauty.  In the past, advances in technology have led to the creation of beautiful things that make the world a better place.  Advances in building technology led to artistic creations such as Chartres in France and Burgos in Spain.  Cathedrals were designed for the ordinary human, just like "Horizon Worlds" is.  But those who built the cathedrals of the Middle Ages were guided by a very specific vision of human purpose:  to encounter, and eventually to love, the Divine.  Their creations gained thereby a timelessness that motivates even a secular culture such as that of France's today to reconstruct Notre Dame after its disastrous fire, at a cost of millions of dollars.

 

The metaverse can be a place of truth, beauty, and goodness.  But those values can be achieved only if those designing it make these values intentional goals.  On the other hand, if their guides are only the two guardrails of profit and avoiding jail or pariah status, they are likely to forge an erratic path that may lead millions of people to places they wish they hadn't gone to.

 

Sources:  The article "Why the Metaverse Has to Look So Stupid" by Nitish Pahwa appeared on Slate's website on Aug. 19, 2022 at https://slate.com/technology/2022/08/mark-zuckerberg-metaverse-horizon-worlds-facebook-looks-crappy-explained.html. 

Will Facebook Kill Holly?

 

I have to be careful about how I write today's column.  I do not want to betray any trusts.  But on the other hand, a topic that up to now has been an abstraction for me has become personal.  A statistic has turned into someone I know by only two degrees of separation.  To protect anonymity, I have changed names and some details of what I will write here.  But I assure you that what I am going to write is based on facts as personally told to me yesterday by someone I will call Holly, who is a twelve-year-old girl.

 

Facebook, which has now renamed itself Meta, has been in the news a lot lately, and in this column as well, because of revelations by a whistleblower named Frances Haugen.  Haugen is a former Facebook employee who has made thousands of pages of internal company documents public, and has testified to Congress that Facebook's own research showed how harmful Instagram and other Facebook services are to teenagers (girls especially) at the same time that Facebook's CEO (and owner of 55% of Facebook's voting stock) Mark Zuckerberg was saying that his firm did not have such data.  The blowback from articles in the Wall Street Journal and other outlets detailing the hypocritical actions of Zuckerberg and his company have been so severe that the firm dropped plans it had announced to develop a new service for preteens called Instagram Kids. 

 

A recent article on the Mind Matters website described these problems and quoted results of a 2017 survey by the UK's Royal Society for Public Health and the Young Health Movement that showed, among other damning evidence, that the average age at which a child creates an Instagram account is 10, even though the software says you must be at least 13 to join.  Among users aged 14 to 24, all but one of the social-media platforms surveyed showed a negative score for well-being. 

 

With all this as a background, let me introduce Holly.  My wife and I have known her slightly for at least a couple of years, and when she was ten she invited us to see her elementary school's production of Peter Pan, which for an older couple with no children was quite a treat.  Although she has since moved to a nearby town, she has the opportunity to visit us now and then, and yesterday was one of those visits.

 

Holly is one of those girls who will rattle on about whatever she's doing if you just stand there and look interested, so my wife and I invited her in and we listened to what she had to say about what she'd been doing since we saw her almost a year ago.  She talked about horses, a vacation trip her family took back East, and then school.  She attends school in a medium-size town that has a reputation for old-fashioned conservative family values, and if something bad is happening there, it's probably happening everywhere else too. 

 

She had her smartphone with her, of course, and as she took it out she said her parents have put some controls on it to limit her social-media use.  While I cannot recall her exact words, the following is substantially what she said next, when we asked her how things have gone at school with COVID-19. 

 

"Oh, it's been bad.  One of my friends committed suicide over the summer.  They were bullying her and it just got so bad she couldn't take it anymore.  That's why I don't mind my folks doing what they did to my phone."

 

After Holly left and I had a chance to think about the enormity of what she told me, it began to sink in that here was a twelve-year-old girl having to deal with the suicide of a personal friend of hers, caused at least in part by the baleful influence of social media. 

 

I don't know anything about this incident other than what Holly told me.  Scientists would call this "anecdotal evidence" and dismiss it as useless for analytical purposes.  But it brings home the diabolical influence of social media on children in a way that no amount of statistics or studies have done for me.  Somewhere there are parents of the sixth-grader who committed suicide who will never see their daughter reach adulthood, get married, or have children of her own.  And during the girl's lifetime, because she was one of the twenty-two million users of Instagram or whatever social media platform contributed to her death, she enriched Mark Zuckerberg personally by some amount of dollars he could charge for ads on her phone.  I hope he enjoys them now, because he won't get a chance to enjoy them where he's going.

 

Holly, at the tender age of twelve, already seems to have a realistic sense of how dangerous social media can be.  And, Lord willing, this sense will preserve her from the hazards of using Facebook products when one is a teenage girl.  But she has all of her teenage years to negotiate ahead of her, and she is not out of the social-media woods yet.

 

We live in an age that is hostile to children and teenagers in many ways.  If a child manages to survive the first nine months of its existence in the womb without being aborted, as about 600,000 children are each year in the U. S., she or he becomes a kind of hobby that our economy tolerates but does not encourage—a "lifestyle choice" that burdens the otherwise ideal worker with expenses and obligations that distract him or her from being totally devoted to the job and to consumption of products and services such as Facebook.  Upon entering school, an institution that was formerly safeguarded from commercial exploitation back in the 1960s when I experienced it, the child becomes the target of 24/7 ads from streaming services, the various entertainment platforms such as video games, and eventually from smartphones.  Arrayed against each individual child is the Big Tech oligopoly of world-class expertise that extracts the last drop of attention with manipulative artificial-intelligence-enhanced algorithms that do things no ordinary human being can understand, algorithms that can intensify social interactions into a tornado of abuse that makes death at one's own hand look like the only alternative. 

 

We prayed with Holly before she left, for protection from the many dangers that life as a girl in America presents today.  God is more powerful that Mark Zuckerberg.  But Mark Zuckerberg doesn't seem to think so.

 

Sources:  I thank Denyse O'Leary for drawing my attention to the article "Facebook's . . . Er, Meta's Instagram Problem" by Heather Zeiger, which appeared at https://mindmatters.ai/2021/12/facebookser-metas-instagram-problem/.