"We will have to explain why we currently allow 20 year olds to message 13 year olds."

Gail ████: "Hi both, I see you are both on the call for 18-20 talking to unconnected minors." Gail ████: "For 2) the safety risk appears to be from messaging per se, possibly exacerbated by age liars. Anand's data indicated that 32% of IICIICInappropriate Interactions with ChildrenA classifier threshold and content category for interactions between adults and children indicative of grooming or exploitation, referred to internally as "a.k.a. 'grooming'". The source document puts the scale at "~500k victims per DAY in English markets only", three times Messenger's prevalence, while calling it "a preliminary metric" and adding "we expect the true situation is worse".Full entry ↗ reports relates to 16-17 year olds. Given we - largely - go with stated age, it's impossible to know if this is actual 16-17 year olds or age liars. Allowing 18 year olds to message 17 year olds wouldn't change this." Gail ████: "option 2 would appear to break the product, at a time when we are looking to engage with teens and offer them a positive, safe experience. We're basically saying that high school seniors need to work out a complicated way to message each other, if they meet at a party." Ravi Sinha: ""Thanks, Gail and Senka. I think that, if we're called to explain the shift to Option 3, we'll likely have to get into the details of current policy, which I think is extremely hard to defend. Tho Antigone (and Comms) has concerns around reception of Option 3 in the US environment more broadly, my most acute external concerns center around what questions we'll get asked when we start talking to regulators/media about these protections differently, as we'll have to do with Option 3." Gail ████: "I'm not worried about the general policy environment. I think in the regulatory environment we will have to explain why we currently allow 20 year olds to message 13 year olds. That seems like a far greater risk."