████: "In terms of SSI risk if we were to do this, we do have a non-rec SSI filter in place on Explore today targeting depiction. It's an old classifier with low precision and low filter volume so unlikely to materially change ecosystem but may result in some SSI admission content appearing if we removed it"
████: "The more I think about this, the more I feel like the right approach is to just not filter SSI admission for people with the setting off. I'm not going to fight that battle but a pure version of the explanation is the only one that really lands well to me."
Karina Newton: "i am really not ok with that"
████: "I agree that the option of setting the bar higher than 'likely violating' is the worst option"
Karina Newton: "and this is my problem with describing this as about borderline content"
Karina Newton: "i think the holocaust denial example is an academic example that applies to very little content"
████: "I feel like you're just making the case to not provide this control then. Which is an argument that also resonates with me. I'm just worried that we are rationalizing this strange middle ground that will be too hard to defend."
Karina Newton: "my issue is this: people who are suffering from depression and self-harm go down IG rabbit holes, and explore functionality compounds this issue. this is why adam published a national op-ed in the uk to say we won't recommend ssi content anymore. this isn't an academic example. and it's not responsible to give young people a way to opt out of this."
████: "I'm also totally fine not providing this setting for people under 18 if that helps. Issues could be that we don't have age for many and could create incentives to lie about age."
Karina Newton: "we also only have age for 55ish percent of people"
████: "I totally agree with you. Do you think people who are struggling are so likely to want to go down this rabbit hole that they will see out the setting and turn it off?"
Karina Newton: "yes, sadly"
Meta & Children's Online Safety