Mark Zuckerberg purchased a castle, while the rest of us settle for a sandcastle once a year.

      Strancally Castle overlooks a bend in the Blackwater River, located a thirty-minute drive from Youghal, in County Waterford, where the river widens and the light is predominantly grey. Built around 1830 by James and George Richard Pain for John Keily, MP for Clonmel, it stands in front of the ruins of the Desmond castle it replaced, on grounds that were initially fortified by Raymond le Gros. Local lore claims that the inhabitants of the older castle once invited local landowners to a feast and then dropped them through a trapdoor into a submerged cavern below.

      The main house spans approximately 16,000 square feet; during the 1850s, the estate encompassed 5,000 acres but was later partitioned by the Irish Land Commission, leaving the family with just 160 acres. Today, it occupies 440 acres. The house is so expansive that one architectural account noted it took four and a half minutes to walk briskly from the kitchen to the dining room.

      On August 20, The Irish Times reported that Mark Zuckerberg had purchased the property, though the price remained undisclosed. A representative stated that Mark and his family were “excited to continue caring for this historic home” and looked forward to spending time in Ireland, “where Meta maintains its international headquarters.” However, just two days earlier, a federal court in Oakland, California, had heard initial arguments against the company Zuckerberg founded.

      I have attempted to separate these two occurrences out of fairness, but I find it impossible. It is one thing for a person to purchase a home; however, when that home features a private quay and coincides with court proceedings involving a whistleblower, the alignment of these events ceases to be mere coincidence and starts to illustrate the flow of money. Wealth of this magnitude does not purchase solace; rather, it buys separation, especially from the very sources that generated such wealth.

      The trial in Oakland involves four states: California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, presided over by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. In reality, it represents the first of 29 state attorneys general to reach a courtroom, marking the beginning of a multidistrict litigation that has combined 3,137 cases. The eight jurors are merely advisory, as Judge Gonzalez Rogers will make the final decision.

      The states claim that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive for minors through algorithmic ranking, infinite scrolling, and notification design, knowing the implications of their actions while publicly denying them. They further allege that the company collected data from children under 13 in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. California’s deputy attorney general, Megan O’Neill, succinctly summarized the alleged business model in four verbs: hook, hold, harvest, hide. She directed the jury’s attention to internal materials from 2016 where the focus was on the time teenagers spent on the platforms, along with a company study ominously titled: “Long Term Retention: The Young Ones Are The Best Ones.”

      Arturo Bejar then took the stand. Bejar served as an engineering director at Meta from 2009 to 2015 and returned as a contractor to evaluate the well-being of teenagers on Instagram. On August 19 and 20, he testified that the company's break reminders were intentionally ineffective, that Meta adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding millions of suspected underage accounts, and that the limitation was never one of capability. “If Mark makes something a priority, mountains move in months,” he stated, adding less carefully, “You just cannot trust Mark Zuckerberg with kids.”

      Meta denies all allegations, with its attorney, Paul Schmidt, asserting that the states are misrepresenting the facts and calling the hypothetical maximum liability of $1.4 trillion “exaggerated” and without “basis in fact or law.” The company also pointed out its initiatives like Instagram Teen Accounts, launched in 2024, which restricts who can contact users under 18, along with parental controls that limit usage time.

      From a mathematical perspective, Meta has a valid argument: that figure is derived from applying statutory penalties for each affected teenager, and it would reflect more of the company's total equity value than any penalty previously assigned. Adolescent mental health issues are complex, and no objective analysis supports a direct correlation between a single app and a specific condition.

      However, the court's focus is not on that aspect. Instead, it pertains to the company's knowledge regarding the design and its decisions. In March, a California jury found Meta and Google negligent in a case involving a young woman who began using YouTube at six and Instagram at 11, awarding her $6 million, with Meta responsible for 70% of that. While the financial figure may appear minor, the finding is significant.

      It marked the first instance where a jury assessed these products as flawed, rather than as neutral platforms where others' lives unfold. Mark Zuckerberg himself has