Email: Re: spark ar/vr -- thoughts needed!

Raw text

Transcribed text as recorded, including headers and formatting fragments.

Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 3012-2 Filed 05/02/26 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit 92 Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 3012-2 Filed 05/02/26 Message From: [/O=THEFACEBOOK/OU=EXTERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS Sent: To: 10/12/2019 1:23:15 AM Karina Newton @instagram.com]; Monika Bickert CC: @fb.com]; Subject: Re: spark ar/vr -- thoughts needed! For reference per email I just sent @instagram.com> Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 12:19 PM From: Karina Newton To: Monika Bickert Cc: Subject: Re: spark ar/vr -- thoughts needed! Thanks much! Page 2 of 3 @fb.com]; Nell McCarthy @fb.com] @instagram.com] @fb.com>, Nell McCarthy @fb.com>, @fb.com>, @instagram.com> @fb.com> @fb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 12:14:00 PM From: Monika Bickert To: Karina Newton Cc: @instagram.com>; Nell McCarthy @fb.com>; Subject: Re: spark ar/vr -- thoughts needed! That sounds fine to us. Please go ahead. From: Karina Newton @instagram.com> @fb.com>; @instagram.com> @fb.com> Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 11:48 AM To: Monika Bickert Cc: @fb.com>, Nell McCarthy @fb.com>, @fb.com>, @instagram.com> Subject: spark ar/vr -- thoughts needed! Sorry Monika and Nell, I thought you were off the hook but unfortunately not. @fb.com> Given this is blowing up in the UK press right now on a particularly sensitive subject matter for IG (teenage girls and mental health), IG product and comms wants to be able to say we will "suspend" any facial distortion beautification Spark AR/VR effects allowed by our current policy 'upon escalation' as we are undertaking our PPF review process. This means the 3rd party filters would be put back in a pending approval state in the Spark platform until the recommended policy changes are reviewed and passed by PPF next month. Given the small number of filters that would be escalated, the ops lift isn't big here and ops is reviewing what that would take now. Given the scrutiny of these 3rd party filters so close to a time we are confident we are going to change the policy, I feel it's not unreasonable - I certainly don't think we can defend them. That said, it would be suspending an approved filter under current policy which is not a precedent I feel great about. Would it be helpful to sync for 5 minutes on this? Karina HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL (COMPETITOR) ΜΕΤΑ3047MDL-020-00689125 Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 3012-2 Filed 05/02/26 Page 3 of 3 My understanding is product has a meeting later today to align on removing all face-distorting effects from the gallery while we wait for the PPF recommendation on beautification filters -- I would be strongly supportive of the pause on approving beautification effects into the Spark AR platform while that review is underway. We are in a very bad place attempting to defend this, especially for young teenage girls who are the primary audience of these filters, and I believe is aligned as well. Because Spark AR is a centrally managed product platform but IG is its main "client", I defer to you on who needs to support that pause. From: Elisabeth Diana @fb.com> Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 9:48 AM To: Justin Osofsky Cc: @fb.com> @fb.com>, Karina Newton @instagram.com>, Vishal Shah @instagram.com>, @instagram.com> Subject: Think we need to do more here Karina - what can we do to address this more bluntly than just playing whack a mole? I'm worried about this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/instagram-fuelling-mental-health-crisis-20551865 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL (COMPETITOR) META3047MDL-020-00689128