Product Design

Problem Statement
How would you prevent hate, misinformation, or deep-fakes on Facebook?

Clarifying Questions
1. What is considered hate speech on Facebook?
Hate speech includes content that promotes violence, discrimination, or harm based on
race, religion, gender, or other protected groups.
2. Will the solution cover only user-generated content, or should we also include ads,
comments, and sponsored content?
Initially, we will focus on user-generated content, but we may expand to cover ads,
comments, and sponsored content in the future.
3. Should users help find harmful content?
Yes, users can report harmful content.
4. What actions should be taken on flagged content?
Flagged content will be reviewed by human moderators who will decide whether to
remove, hide, or label the content.
5. Is this tool meant to be globally applicable or customized for specific regions?
The tool should be globally applicable but should have the flexibility to accommodate
regional regulations and cultural sensitivities in the future.
6. How do we measure success?
Success will be measured by reducing harmful content, increasing moderation
efficiency, and improving user trust through transparency.
7. What is the timeline for developing and releasing the first version of this tool?
The goal is to release an MVP within the next 4-5 months, focused on flagging harmful
content with a focus on the most critical issues.
8. Are there any budgetary or technical constraints we should consider?
No budget constraint. The solution needs to integrate seamlessly with Facebook’s
existing systems while being scalable.
9. How will cultural differences in hate speech be addressed globally?
We will consider local cultures and laws, using regional experts to guide moderation.
This ensures content is reviewed based on each region’s specific needs.

User Segmentation
1. Regular Users
These users frequently browse and interact with content on Facebook. They might engage with
posts from friends, family, and public pages.

Needs: They need a smooth, safe browsing experience, free from harmful content like hate
speech and misinformation. They want to know that the platform is actively working to protect
them from dangerous content.

Pain Points: They are frustrated by seeing harmful or misleading content in their feeds and want
a quick way to report or avoid such posts.

1|Prod uc t D es i g n Muhamid Ali

2. Content Creators (Influencers, Journalists, etc.)
These users create and share content on Facebook, ranging from personal updates to news and
promotional materials.

Needs: They need tools that help them create content responsibly. They also require the ability
to manage and moderate comments or content that may lead to misinformation or hate
speech.

Pain Points: They struggle with ensuring their content is not misinterpreted or manipulated
(deep-fakes) and want better control over how their content is shared or flagged.

3. Moderators & Fact-Checkers

These are people or tools tasked with reviewing flagged content, ensuring the platform adheres
to community guidelines, and maintaining the quality of information shared.

Needs: They need efficient tools for flagging harmful content, verifying facts, and reviewing
flagged posts to maintain the integrity of information.

Pain Points: They often face an overwhelming amount of flagged content, especially during
high-stakes events like elections, and need support from AI tools to process and review content
quickly.

User Segment Prioritization

Regular users should be prioritized because they are the majority on Facebook. Ensuring a safe,
positive experience for them prevents the spread of harmful content like hate speech,
misinformation, and deep-fakes. Regular users actively report harmful posts, making their
experience critical for content moderation and platform integrity. Addressing their needs helps
improve engagement, retention, and Facebook's reputation.

User Persona
Name Anjali Sharma

Age 28

Occupation Marketing Specialist

Location Bengaluru, India

Background Anjali is a young professional who works in marketing and spends time on
Facebook to stay connected with her friends, family, and the latest news. She
is active in various groups and often follows updates from public pages.
However, she is frustrated by harmful content like hate speech and
misinformation. She wants to enjoy the platform without feeling concerned
about the accuracy of what she sees.

Goals - Stay informed and entertained without harmful or misleading content.

- Share personal updates in a safe and friendly environment.

- Easily report harmful or fake content when encountered.

2|Prod uc t D es i g n Muhamid Ali

Pain Points 1. Encountering harmful content like hate speech, misinformation, or deep-
fakes in the feed.

2. Difficulty in distinguishing between real news and fake/misleading content.

3. Frustration over ineffective tools to report harmful content quickly.

4. Misinformation spreading unchecked, especially during sensitive events.

5. Limited transparency around what happens after reporting harmful

content.

Tech Moderate – She uses Facebook on her phone regularly and is familiar with the
Savviness platform’s features but doesn’t have a deep understanding of the back-end
moderation systems or AI tools that detect harmful content.

User Journey Before the Solution

1. Opening Facebook Feed
Anjali opens her Facebook app on her phone to check the latest updates, news, and
updates from her friends, family, and groups she follows.
2. Browsing Content
She scrolls through her news feed, liking and commenting on posts. She interacts with
personal updates, news articles, and content shared by public pages she follows. She
enjoys staying informed and entertained.
3. Encountering Harmful Content
As she browses, she occasionally encounters content that feels inappropriate,
misleading, or harmful—hate speech, fake news, or deep-fakes. This negatively impacts
her browsing experience.
4. Feeling Frustrated and Unsafe
Anjali feels frustrated by the presence of such content. She feels unsafe knowing that
harmful posts can easily spread. This disrupts her enjoyment of the platform.
5. Attempting to Report Harmful Content
When she comes across problematic posts, Anjali uses Facebook’s reporting tools to
flag them. However, the process feels slow and unclear. She wonders if the report will
lead to any action.
6. Uncertainty About Effectiveness
After reporting harmful content, Anjali doesn’t know if the content was reviewed or
removed. She lacks feedback, which makes her feel powerless and unsure whether the
platform is effectively addressing the issues.
7. Leaving the Platform Feeling Unsatisfied
Due to the persistent harmful content, lack of transparency, and ineffective tools,
Anjali’s overall experience on Facebook feels unsatisfactory. She contemplates whether
Facebook is the right platform for a safe browsing experience.

3|Prod uc t D es i g n Muhamid Ali

Challenges
Before the introduction of this solution, Anjali faces multiple challenges:

• Difficulty in identifying harmful content: She struggles to differentiate between real news
and fake/misleading content, especially when deep-fakes or manipulated images/videos
are involved.

• Reporting challenges: When she does encounter harmful content, Anjali finds it frustrating
to report it efficiently. The reporting tools aren’t quick or clear enough, and she wonders if
her report will actually lead to action.

• Feeling unsafe: The presence of harmful content, including hate speech and
misinformation, leaves her feeling unsafe on the platform, questioning the quality and
accuracy of everything she sees.

• Limited transparency: After reporting harmful content, Anjali has no way of knowing if her
report was processed or if the content was actually removed. This lack of feedback makes
her feel powerless in curbing harmful content.

Core Problem
The core problem is that Anjali, along with other users, struggles to enjoy a safe, informative,
and engaging experience on Facebook due to the prevalence of harmful content like hate
speech, misinformation, and deep-fakes. The tools currently available for reporting and dealing
with such content are ineffective, cumbersome, and lack transparency, which makes users feel
unsafe and powerless.

Pain Points
1. Exposure to Harmful Content
Users frequently encounter harmful content like hate speech, misinformation, and deep-
fakes in their feeds.

Impact: This creates an unsafe browsing experience and makes users feel uncomfortable
and distrustful of the platform.

2. Difficulty Distinguishing Misinformation

It’s hard for users to differentiate between real news and fake or misleading content.

Impact: Users become confused and may unknowingly share false information, which
undermines trust in the platform.

3. Frustration with Reporting Tools

Reporting tools for harmful content are often slow and difficult to use.

Impact: Users feel frustrated and powerless, as they can't quickly address harmful content
they come across.

4|Prod uc t D es i g n Muhamid Ali

4. Lack of Transparency in Content Moderation
After reporting harmful content, users don’t receive any updates or feedback about the
status of their report.

Impact: This lack of transparency reduces trust in the platform’s ability to effectively handle
harmful content, leaving users feeling ignored.

5. Misinformation During Sensitive Times

Misinformation spreads rapidly, especially during sensitive times like elections or health
crises.

Impact: This increases anxiety and makes users question the accuracy of information,
diminishing their confidence in the platform’s ability to maintain a safe environment.

6. Uncertainty About the Impact of Reporting

Users are uncertain about whether their reports of harmful content are being addressed or
not.

Impact: This leads to a sense of helplessness, causing users to lose trust in the platform’s
commitment to tackling harmful content.

Business Alignment
The business alignment focuses on improving user experience, trust, compliance, and
advertiser relationships, all of which are essential for Facebook’s long-term success. By
focusing on preventing hate, misinformation, and deep-fakes, Facebook can build a safer and
more reliable platform, ensuring the business can continue to grow sustainably while meeting
both user and regulatory expectations.

Pain Point Prioritization

Pain Point Reach Impact Confidence Effort RICE
Score
Exposure to Harmful Content 8 9 8 6 9.0
Difficulty Distinguishing 7 8 9 5 8.5
Misinformation
Frustration with Reporting Tools 6 7 8 4 7.5
Lack of Transparency in Content 6 8 8 5 8.0
Moderation
Misinformation During Sensitive 7 9 7 7 7.7
Times
Uncertainty About the Impact of 5 7 7 4 6.0
Reporting

Rationale for Prioritizing

1. Exposure to Harmful Content: This is the top priority. It affects a wide range of users
and can significantly improve user experience. High impact and confidence make it the
top priority.

5|Prod uc t D es i g n Muhamid Ali

 2. Difficulty Distinguishing Misinformation: This is a critical issue, but it requires
significant effort and technological investment, though still a very important priority.
3. Frustration with Reporting Tools: Users expect easy and effective reporting, but the
reach and impact are slightly lower than other issues, leading to a lower score.
4. Lack of Transparency in Content Moderation: Transparency builds trust but isn’t as
urgent as tackling harmful content or misinformation directly.
5. Misinformation During Sensitive Times: While impactful, this is more situational and
happens less frequently, thus slightly lower in priority compared to ongoing issues like
harmful content.
6. Uncertainty About the Impact of Reporting: While this affects trust, its impact is
smaller in scale and can be fixed with relatively simple solutions.

Prioritized Pain Points

Based on the RICE prioritization scores, the top three pain points to prioritize are:

Pain Point RICE Score Rationale

Exposure to Harmful Content 9.0 This is the highest priority because it has a
broad reach and high impact on user
experience. Addressing harmful content like
hate speech, misinformation, and deep-
fakes will significantly improve safety and
trust on the platform.
Difficulty Distinguishing 8.5 This is a critical issue that affects user trust.
Misinformation Solving it requires advanced technological
investment but is essential for maintaining
platform integrity and ensuring users get
accurate information.
Lack of Transparency in 8.0 Improving transparency about content
Content Moderation moderation will foster trust among users,
making them feel that their reports are taken
seriously and handled appropriately.

These three pain points should be prioritized as they have the highest RICE scores and will have
the most significant impact on improving user experience and trust on the platform.

Proposed Solutions
Solution 1: Enhanced AI-Based Detection & Real-Time Flagging
Pain point: Exposure to Harmful Content

Description:
Improved AI models will be deployed to detect harmful content such as hate speech,
misinformation, and deepfakes across text, images, and videos. This system will use machine
learning and natural language processing to analyze user content in real-time and automatically
flag inappropriate posts. The flagged content will then be reviewed by Facebook moderators or
fact-checkers for further action.

How It Works:

• The AI scans text posts, images, and videos posted by users.

6|Prod uc t D es i g n Muhamid Ali

 • It looks for keywords or patterns indicative of hate speech, misinformation, or
deepfakes.

• Suspicious content is flagged for review.

• If a post is flagged, the system sends alerts to Facebook's moderation team or third-
party fact-checkers for verification.

• Real-time flagging ensures harmful content is removed or tagged before it spreads

further.

Features Required:

• Advanced Text & Image Analysis: Deep learning models for analyzing text and images
for harmful content.

• Real-time Flagging System: Instant detection and flagging of harmful content for quick
action.

• Integration with Fact-Checkers: A seamless integration with third-party fact-checking

services for verifying misinformation.

• Content Review System: Moderators and automated systems review flagged content
for final actions.

Impact:

This solution will reduce harmful content exposure, enhancing users' safety and trust on the
platform. It ensures quicker identification and removal of hate speech, misinformation, and
deepfakes, fostering a healthier environment.

Solution 2: Content Labeling & Fact-Checking Integration

Pain point: Difficulty Distinguishing Misinformation

Description:
This solution involves prominently labeling content flagged as misinformation, deepfakes, or
potentially harmful. Facebook will partner with credible third-party fact-checkers to validate
content and provide context. These labels will give users easy-to-understand warnings about
the accuracy of the content they encounter.

How It Works:

• Content flagged as potentially harmful or misleading is marked with clear labels (e.g.,
“Fact-Checked,” “Possible Misinformation,” “Deepfake Detected”).

• Fact-checkers verify content, and once validated, a “Fact-Checked” label with a source
link is placed.

• Users can click on the label to access more context or references supporting the
accuracy of the post.

• Deepfake detection tools can be used to flag altered videos or images with a warning.

7|Prod uc t D es i g n Muhamid Ali

Features Required:

• Content Labeling System: A feature to apply and display accurate content labels like
"Fact-Checked" or "Deepfake Detected."

• Fact-Checker Integration: A system to work directly with third-party fact-checkers to

validate and mark misinformation.

• User Interface for Context: A clickable label that leads to more information, such as
articles or sources, that explain the label.

• Deepfake Detection Tools: AI tools that analyze videos and images for signs of
manipulation, such as mismatched voices or unnatural movements.

Impact:

By clearly labeling harmful content, users will be empowered to make informed decisions. This
solution increases trust in the platform, reduces misinformation spread, and helps users easily
identify and avoid false content.

Solution 3: Content Moderation Transparency Dashboard

Pain point: Lack of Transparency in Content Moderation

Description:
This solution aims to provide users with visibility into the content moderation process by giving
them access to a Content Moderation Dashboard. After users report harmful content, they will
be able to track the status of their reports in real time, including updates on actions taken (e.g.,
removal of content, warnings to users). This transparency will help users understand the
process and feel assured that their concerns are being addressed.

How It Works:

• After reporting content, users can visit their dashboard to track the status of their report
(e.g., "Under Review," "Content Removed," "No Action Taken").

• Users will receive updates on the status of flagged content, including any action taken
or reasons for no action.

• When content is flagged, users can get detailed feedback explaining why content was
removed, flagged, or allowed to stay.

• Users will have access to a history of their reports, seeing how their concerns were
handled previously.

Features Required:

• User Dashboard: A simple, intuitive interface that displays all reported content and the
current status of each report.

• Status Indicators: Clear, real-time indicators (e.g., "Under Review," "Removed," "No
Action Taken") for reported content.

• Feedback System: Notifications or pop-ups that explain moderation decisions in

simple terms.

8|Prod uc t D es i g n Muhamid Ali

 • Historical Tracking: Ability for users to view past reports and actions taken on them.

Impact:

Providing users with real-time updates on their reports builds trust and transparency. Users will
feel more in control, reducing frustration and improving confidence in the platform’s ability to
manage harmful content.

User Experience Flow

Solution 1: Enhanced AI-Based Detection & Real-Time Flagging
1. The user posts content (text, image, or video) on Facebook.

2. The AI system scans the content using machine learning and natural language
processing to detect harmful content (hate speech, misinformation, deepfakes).

3. Harmful content is flagged for review.

4. The flagged content is sent to Facebook's moderation team or third-party fact-checkers

for further analysis.

5. The user receives a notification that their content has been flagged and is under review.

6. The moderators or fact-checkers review the flagged content and make a decision (e.g.,
removing, tagging, or allowing the post to remain live).

7. The user receives feedback about the status of their post (removed, flagged, or kept
live).

8. If the post is removed, the user gets an explanation regarding the reason (e.g., "Hate
speech detected" or "Misinformation detected").

Solution 2: Clear Content Labeling & Fact-Checking Integration

1. The user browses through their Facebook feed and encounters content that may be
harmful (misinformation, deepfakes, etc.).

2. Content is flagged as potentially harmful or misleading and marked with a label (e.g.,
“Fact-Checked,” “Possible Misinformation,” or “Deepfake Detected”).

3. The flagged content is sent for verification by third-party fact-checkers.

4. Once verified, a “Fact-Checked” label is applied, along with a source link to validate the
claims.

5. The user clicks on the label to view more information, such as the context or references
supporting the claim.

6. If deepfake detection is enabled, a “Deepfake Detected” label will be applied to

manipulated content.

7. The user clicks the label to understand how the content was detected as a deepfake.

8. The user decides whether to trust, share, or avoid the post based on the information
provided.

9|Prod uc t D es i g n Muhamid Ali

Solution 3: Content Moderation Transparency Dashboard
1. The user encounters harmful content and reports it using the Facebook reporting tools
(e.g., hate speech, misinformation).

2. The content is submitted for review by the Facebook moderation team.

3. The user visits the Content Moderation Dashboard to track the status of their report.

4. The dashboard displays a list of reported content, with status indicators such as “Under
Review,” “Removed,” or “No Action Taken.”

5. The user checks the current status of their report and waits for updates.

6. Once the moderation process is complete, the status is updated to reflect the action
taken (content removed, flagged, or retained).

7. The user receives feedback on the actions taken, such as content removal or a warning
issued to the user who posted the content.

8. If the content is flagged or removed, detailed feedback is provided explaining why the
decision was made (e.g., "Hate speech" or "Misinformation").

9. The user can see their history of reported content and track how previous reports were
handled.

Metrics
Success Metrics
Metric Frequency Target Metric Explanation

20% of total Measures how effectively harmful

content flagged content (hate speech, misinformation,
Harmful Content
Monthly as harmful deepfakes) is detected. A higher
Flagging Rate
(within 3 flagging rate suggests the system is
months) identifying harmful content well.

90% of flagged
Tracks the speed of responding to
content acted
Real-Time flagged content. Quick action reduces
Weekly upon within 24
Moderation Rate the spread of harmful content and
hours (within 2
builds user trust.
months)

Indicates the effectiveness of the

85% of flagged
misinformation detection and labeling
misinformation
Misinformation system in preventing its spread. A
Monthly contained
Containment Rate lower rate suggests better
(within 3
containment and reduced
months)
misinformation.

10 | P r o d u c t D e s i g n Muhamid Ali
Metric Frequency Target Metric Explanation

25% of users Measures how engaged users are with

User Engagement engage with fact- flagged content. High engagement
with Fact-Check Weekly checking labels suggests that users are aware and
Labels (within 4 trust the information provided by fact-
months) checking labels.

80% user trust

Tracks user confidence in Facebook's
score in
User Trust in moderation efforts. Higher scores
Quarterly moderation
Moderation indicate that users trust the system to
(within 6
address harmful content accurately.
months)

85% satisfaction Measures user satisfaction with the

Moderation rate with feedback provided after reporting
Feedback Quarterly moderation content. High satisfaction suggests
Satisfaction feedback (within transparency and effectiveness in the
6 months) reporting system.

90% reports with Indicates the success of moderation

actionable efforts by tracking how many reports
Resolved Report
Monthly outcomes result in actionable outcomes. A
Rate
(within 3 higher rate suggests effective content
months) management.

50% of users Measures user interest in tracking

engage with report statuses. Higher engagement
Report Tracking
Monthly report tracking indicates that users value
Engagement Rate
(within 3 transparency and want to stay
months) informed.

Indicates whether users remain

70% retention
engaged with the platform after
Retention Rate rate post-report
Monthly interacting with the reporting system,
Post-Report (within 4
reflecting their trust in the platform's
months)
moderation.

11 | P r o d u c t D e s i g n Muhamid Ali
Counter Metrics
Counter Metric Frequency Target Metric Explanation

A high churn rate could suggest

Keep churn rate dissatisfaction with the platform's
Churn Rate Monthly under 5% (within 6 content moderation or reporting
months) system, indicating a need for
improvement.

Less than 10% of

Measures if benign content is being
flagged content
flagged as harmful, causing frustration
Over-Flagging Rate Monthly found non-
for users and potentially reducing
harmful (within 6
content creators’ trust in the platform.
months)

Measures the accuracy of

Keep false positive
False Positive Rate misinformation detection. High false
rate under 5%
in Misinformation Monthly positive rates may lead to user
(within 6 months)
Detection frustration and a loss of trust in the
flagging system.

High dissatisfaction levels may

Less than 20% of
indicate that users find the reporting
Reporting System users report
Monthly system too complex or ineffective,
Frustration dissatisfaction
reducing their engagement with
(within 6 months)
moderation.

Keep moderation-
A high volume of moderation-related
related support
Customer Support tickets indicates that users are facing
Weekly tickets under 5%
Ticket Volume issues with the system, whether it's
of total tickets
with flagging, reporting, or feedback.
(within 6 months)

Timeline and Milestones

Phase Timeline Key Milestones Deliverables

1. Finalize user personas and

stakeholder interviews 1. Clear understanding
2. Conduct competitive of user needs and pain
analysis on harmful content points
Phase 1: Research & Week 1 -
moderation 2. Competitive analysis
Planning Week 3
3. Define the problem report
statement, success metrics, 3. Finalized feature set
and alignment with business and wireframes
goals

12 | P r o d u c t D e s i g n Muhamid Ali
Phase Timeline Key Milestones Deliverables

1. High-fidelity UI/UX
1. Develop solution design for designs and
MVP (AI-based flagging system) wireframes
Phase 2: Design & Week 4 - 2. Finalize UI/UX designs and 2. Completed initial
Prototyping Week 6 user flows user testing results
3. Initial usability testing of 3. Feedback
prototypes with target users incorporated into
prototypes

1. Develop AI-based flagging

system for text, images, and
1. Alpha version of the
videos
AI flagging system
Phase 3: MVP 2. Integrate real-time content
Week 7 - 2. Backend
Development (AI moderation and reporting
Week 12 infrastructure ready
Flagging) system
3. Real-time flagging
3. Test AI system for various
capability enabled
content types and flagging
accuracy

1. Beta testing with internal 1. Bug fixes and

team for AI flagging system performance
2. Collect detailed feedback on improvements
Phase 4: Internal Week 13 -
AI performance and content 2. Improved AI model
Testing & Feedback Week 16
moderation flow accuracy
3. Refine AI models based on 3. Internal feedback
test results report for iteration

1. Public MVP launch of AI- 1. MVP of AI flagging

based flagging system system live
2. Initial marketing rollout to 2. Marketing campaign
Phase 5: MVP Launch Week 17 -
educate users on AI flagging launched
(AI Flagging) Week 20
system 3. Onboarding process
3. Launch user onboarding flow optimized for user
for moderation transparency education

1. Collect user feedback post- 1. Updated and

launch optimized AI models
Phase 6: Post-Launch
Week 21 - 2. Iterate and enhance AI 2. Enhanced user
Optimization &
Week 24 models based on real user data experience
Feedback Loop
3. Implement performance 3. Performance
optimizations and bug fixes improvements

1. Develop content labeling 1. Misinformation

Phase 7: Misinformation Week 25 - system for misinformation and labeling feature
Labeling Development Week 32 deepfakes integrated
2. Integrate third-party fact- 2. Full third-party fact-

13 | P r o d u c t D e s i g n Muhamid Ali
Phase Timeline Key Milestones Deliverables

checking services into the checker API integration

system 3. Deepfake detection
3. Finalize AI detection of system finalized
deepfakes

1. Launch misinformation and

1. Public launch of
deepfake labeling system
misinformation
publicly
labeling system
Phase 8: Misinformation Week 33 - 2. Educate users on new
2. Marketing materials
Labeling Rollout Week 36 feature through marketing
created and distributed
campaigns
3. User engagement
3. Monitor user adoption and
metrics
interaction

1. Develop and integrate 1. Moderation

moderation transparency dashboard prototype
Phase 9: Moderation dashboard ready for testing
Transparency Week 37 - 2. Implement user report 2. Dashboard feature
Dashboard Week 42 tracking and status indicators tested internally
Development 3. Internal testing for 3. User journey for
dashboard features and report tracking
feedback finalized

1. Moderation
1. Public release of moderation transparency
transparency dashboard dashboard live
Phase 10: Transparency Week 43 - 2. Collect feedback and usage 2. Initial marketing
Dashboard Launch Week 46 data from users push for feature
3. Analyze and optimize based adoption
on feedback 3. Continuous
performance tracking

1. Final iteration on all 3

1. Refined system with
solutions (AI flagging,
all 3 solutions fully
misinformation labeling,
integrated
transparency dashboard)
2. Optimized user
Phase 11: Final Week 47 - 2. Apply last round of
experience
Optimization & Iteration Week 52 optimizations based on
3. Final product
success metrics
release with all
3. Analyze key performance
solutions live and
indicators and prepare for
stable
future scaling

14 | P r o d u c t D e s i g n Muhamid Ali
Key Milestones
• Week 6: Finalized design and prototypes for AI-based flagging system.
• Week 12: AI-based flagging system MVP development complete.
• Week 20: Public launch of AI-based flagging system (MVP).
• Week 24: Iterations and optimizations based on user feedback after MVP launch.
• Week 32: Misinformation labeling system developed and integrated with fact-checkers.
• Week 36: Full rollout of misinformation and deepfake labeling system.
• Week 42: Moderation transparency dashboard development complete.
• Week 46: Public launch of moderation transparency dashboard.
• Week 52: Final product optimizations and successful delivery of all features.

15 | P r o d u c t D e s i g n Muhamid Ali