There’s the old joke that metalheads are nice people pretending to be mean, while hippies are mean people pretending to be nice.

When I was 21 I joined a big band that had people from their late teens to their mid 70s. I think of everyone in that band as something like family, and it was one of the most enriching experiences of my life. Like all friendships, it’s case by case. There are shitty people and there are cool people. Your son is an adult and has to learn to distinguish between those. We do live in a world where inter-generational friendships are rare, and maybe that means that there’s a higher chance that this guy is odd, but to foreclose on inter-generational friendships seems pretty impoverishing. This guy’s background and life experience is probably really different from that of your son. Developing close friendships with people like that is important. Had I not, especially at a young age, I’d be a very different person.

Or he could be a weirdo 🤷

My point wasn’t that in this specific case they made up “superior ownership,” but rather that it was made up as a legal concept at some point in the past, probably by lawyers working for rich people, and it’ll probably never matter to you and me. Like so many legal concepts, it is reasonable, but only rich people can really access it, and, at this point, there are so many of them that they will always have one ready to go when it suits them.

I don’t disagree but I’d say that there’s a more important lesson here: The concept of ownership is mediated by a legal system that gives the wealthy a special pass. Rich people can pay lawyers to make up concepts like “superior ownership” 'til the cows come home, and any subsequent precedent costs $600/hr to even access. None of us should feel secure under this system about our online lives or our fucking houses, even if we “own” them.