Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, is in trouble because they let bad people send mean messages to young kids. The government says Meta knew about this problem but didn't do enough to protect the kids. Now, Meta is trying to make things better by not letting teens chat with strangers who don't follow them on Instagram. This way, they hope to keep kids safe from creepy people online. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and sensationalist. It implies that Meta blocks all adults from messaging teens they don't follow, which is not true. Only messages from people who aren't on their friends list are restricted. This creates a false impression of the extent and nature of the problem.
2. The article cites a lawsuit filed by the New Mexico Department of Justice as evidence of Meta's negligence. However, this lawsuit is not only unsealed, but also controversial and disputed. It accuses Meta of being aware of inappropriate content, but does not provide concrete proof or examples. The validity and reliability of the source are questionable.
3. The article claims that Meta was accused of ignoring a "significant amount" of inappropriate content, without specifying how much or what kind of content. This vagueness undermines the credibility of the claim and makes it sound exaggerated. A more precise and nuanced description would be more informative and persuasive.
4. The article does not mention any measures that Meta has taken to protect young users, such as parental controls, age verification, content moderation, or educational programs. It only focuses on the negative aspects of the situation, which creates a one-sided and unfair portrayal of Meta's actions and intentions.
5. The article suggests that the stricter messaging rules for teens are a response to the criticism and lawsuit, rather than a proactive and responsible decision by Meta. This implies that Meta is only motivated by self-interest and public relations, rather than genuine concern for the well-being of young users.
6. The article does not provide any evidence or data to support its claims or arguments. It relies on anecdotal reports, opinions, and emotions, which are not sufficient to establish a clear and convincing case. A more rigorous and balanced approach would require empirical research, statistics, and facts.