I don’t agree. Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant in this case. And I’ve never heard anyone seriously argue that 16-year-olds shouldn’t have phones, or that 16-year-old girls are at fault when an old man secretly makes videos of them. Both these groups seem like imagined bogeymen that the article is railing against.
>Whether or not these girls had phones, or social media, was irrelevant
The article explains why that was not irrelevant.
Who is saying 16yos shouldn't have phones though?
Maybe if you have a certain frame of reference? I found it impenetrable.