"So long as we have a cool-down period, we're signaling that we are OK with letting u13s on our platform... I just learned that our age change and underage_account disable work (both of which I'm now plugged into) are very under-developed/broken... When a user tries to update their age to be <13, we do not checkpoint them as underage and they are able to continue using FB even after they confirm that they are a specific age"

Shane Witnov: "2 issues that have recently come up discussions with Growth about age management that I'd really appreciate your quick help/take on. We owe a response back to Growth on Wednesday. (Sorry for short notice). 1. How long is reasonable to block a device after it failed our age gate? As you know you get 2 chances to enter a valid age and after that we block for 2 hours or until you force quit the app. In the past you expressed concern that you didn't think 2 hours was credible. I think we have the chance to increase that number as we roll out globally and standardize with IG. What do you think is the minimum credible number of hours? And if you had any thoughs on a way to validate this or have a more rigorous basis for this other than our best guest, I'd welcome that. If we wanted to read into legislative intent we could try to tie it to the average length that a web browser was left open in 1998 when COPPA as this is supposed to match session cookies, which expire when a browser is closed. For that I think 2 hours isn't unreasonable, but that likely isn't the best standard." ████: "Antigone, I'm sure you've had to go 'round this debate a million times over. My two cents: I don't think any cool-down period is defensible and now that I've had some good visibility into the Core Dimensions work on reaching a 'Gold Standard' I'd rather go with Option 3: Push age launch to January in order to test and align on 'gold standard' before launching. They seem to be making good progress with their new Adult Classifier (an improvement upon Single Factor Approach currently used by FB Dating). Re: using age range, I'm not sure how this is an improvement but agree that we can't go with option #1 where there's only one bucket below 13. So long as we have a cool-down period, we're signaling that we are OK with letting u13s on our platform. On the other end of our age management workflow, I just learned that our age change and underage_account disable work (both of which I'm now plugged into) are very under-developed/broken: 1. There's no single owner for underage disables and work has just kicked off to launch an effort to cross-app checkpoint/disable. 2. When a user tries to update their age to be <13, we do not checkpoint them as underage and they are able to continue using FB even after they confirm that they are a specific age (see the screenshot I took below, 'I confirm my age is 9'). All I have to do is close the error dialog box and keep changing my birthdate until I get the right one. (We're getting CO to fix this right now)"