[Redacted] on Lifestage app: "there is no age cap (they are relying on people reporting non-students, impersonators), there are no nudity or porn filters in the app, they have not thought about burner phones, and this has not gone through security review but the team doesn't think it has to."

████: [Lifestage Questions]: "1. How is CO going to monitor and review reports? Will it be exactly the same process and standards that are used for FB content?" "2. How will we be deciding who is a fraudulent account when people report specific users? Since we don't have a real name policy and have no way or verifying whether a student actually attends a school, how will those calls to remove people from the app be made?" "3. Are we using nudity or porn filters?" "4. Will there be an age cap? I saw that this was discussed in the privacy XFN last week but wasn't sure where it netted out." "5. Lastly, has Lifestage been through a product security review? If not, ████ suggested that one can be set up and can help us get that done." ████: "I was able to get answers to most of the questions that came up in our meeting and got an update on the latest launch plan that ████ worked on following our feedback. TLDR is that they're relying on existing CO analysts and processes but it's still unclear how they'll be evaluating reported content, there is no age cap (they are relying on people reporting non-students, impersonators), there are no nudity or porn filters in the app, they have not thought about burner phones, and this has not gone through security review but the team doesn't think it has to." ████: "The authenticity piece seems really tricky — we can't enforce against impersonation/predators/press if we don't have a way to verify accounts." ████: "I totally agree- their relying on others reporting won't be effective if we can't evaluate authenticity. Someone could create a profile to snoop on teens, but never post anything themselves (or posts videos that don't reveal anything about them) and essentially remain anonymous." ████: "Based on your update, we now know they are rejecting the 'viral' strategy and instead just picking the 10 largest schools in NYC and Miami. So this will still beg the question of why we picked those schools and those cities. We can have good comms answers for those that will be fine. But it could raise an issue with the schools themselves- - so it begs the question again if we are doing any outreach to them beforehand. I know the PMM said we wouldn't, because that could tarnish the 'cool' factor for the studies if the administrators buy in. But the flip side of that is that we could have some angry public educators wondering what we're doing. This could also lead to some angry commentary directed at Mark, given that education is such a big part of what he cares about and that CZI is heavily invested in this. So they need to weigh all those risks." Antigone Davis: "Thanks ████ for pushing this point. We have raised it a bunch of times and it hasn't seemed to resonate."