351–360 of 620 posts
I am so glad i am not on facebook since 2008. If you think it's not messing with you, THINK AGAIN. Facebook is the worst thing that happened to us, except for Mark and it's employees
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People are desensitised from things they are raised with From my own experience, that's not required. I grew up pretty sheltered myself and I have no problem seeing that kind of content occasionally. Maybe it would be a different story if I were being exposed to this sort of content constantly. I don't know. That said, I hadn't actually read the article when I posted and found it pretty surprising. It seems there's…
So take that, and then change it to a human child. I was trying to use a fairly light-touch subject matter. At that point, if you don't have a reaction(from seeing it multiple times), its probably tome to seek professional help.
You're already assuming there must be something wrong with me because I'm not getting scandalized by the idea of seeing violence. That's exactly the kind of reaction that makes me skeptic.
Just so it's clear, I do dislike seeing violence, I just don't think it's that big a deal in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but this seems arbitrary. Why is $150K great but $30K isn't? At what level of income for software engineers would you consider employers to be "debasing" the values of social stability? What's so unstable about a world in which software engineers don't make a ton of money?
I guess it's expected in HN that someone would focus on the software engineer pay, but that largely misses the point. I don't think anyone was arguing that the SWE in this case was overpaid. Perhaps there's a case that, in the context of the moderators who make so much less, it can create a wealth inequality that leads to social instability, but I don't thinks there's enough information for that claim. I would argue…
This was a valuable article to read. Facebook is enormously valuable. They made something like $15B in net income in the last four quarters. Content moderators are a necessary condition for that profit. If kiddie porn, gore and animal cruelty flooded the network, it would cease to be a destination visited by people that advertisers will pay to reach. And yet, there are two sets of entry-level knowledge workers at Fac…
I don't understand how this isn't a problem perfectly solved by the market. If it's a shit job that isn't worth the pay, people won't do it. If it's an okay job that isn't really worth the pay, they will have high turnover. High turnover has a cost, maybe it's worth it to them. If the turnover is so high or the job is so undesirable, maybe they'll axe the role. If the role is so important to the business that it can'…
I don't understand how this
isn't a problem perfectly
solved by the market.
You ever read Upton Sinclair's the jungle? It's a tale as old as time. Just publicly shame the company and ultimately they change or congress passes laws. This is a major reason the media works this way, it's part of American democracy.
This just doesn't work in today's world. If it did, Equifax wouldn't be thriving the way it still does today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the description of the videos in the article, I'm not sure that merely paying the moderators more would solve it. I think for most people that I'd want to be moderating content (e.g. not sociopaths) making them richer isn't going to do anything to deal with the real reason this is worse than a call centre - the content itself. I'd rather see facebook put more effort into protecting moderators from the content t…
Provide colour-inversion buttons to help reduce visual impact I was thinking also about blurring the picture/video.
1. Blurred+Mosaic 2. Contour lines only 3. Windowed/Striped (only showing like 10-25% of the photo)
If 2/3 of the moderators above agree that it's a bad photo, it moves onto stage 4:
4. Color filters - Break the photo down into k-means color clusters, moderators choose which colors to see. They can see 100% of the colors, or one, or two, or however many they need.
If #4 agrees, the photo goes into the round folder.
No need for anyone to ever see the whole photo. It'll be pretty obvious that something was violating the TOS without anyone being able identify anything specific about the photo.
We're not talking about 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' here, we're talking about 'yeah, that's probably not ok.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>likely going to acquire mental illnesses I find hard to believe humans are so sensitive that some visual stimulation is going to give them mental illnesses. We evolved in an environment where violence was part of real life and a real threat to our own well being, seeing it on a screen will elicit emotions we may not be used to in modern life, but causing mental illness is a stretch.
The job is to view an endless parade of the most creatively horrible things people have ever said to each other or captured on film, all day every day. The job itself requires you to actually scrutinize the details-- averting your eyes is not an option. The job is to look at and mentally process each artifact. Violence in our origins at least had a point. Kill for survival. Kill for food. Killing meant something. Rap…
I do wonder what is the distribution of content they have to moderate. Is it a continuous stream of violence or is that something that appears once or twice a day?
>if it's so harmless for people to be exposed to, why moderate anything at all?
Obviously if the public doesn't like it enough, you're going to moderate it away. Some places don't even allow cleavage, so it's not like something has to be harmful to be moderated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make the users do a little every so often. Like Slashdot's "hey, go moderate some posts" thing but forced to before they can use the platform anymore. That'd be fun. Of course the real answer is that this sort of site is a bad idea and shouldn't exist. Wide-open signup and public visibility of content, or ease of sharing it with strangers. Bad combo, don't care how much money it's making them (and other, similar site…
There's not really a shortcut around having employees do it because Facebook has a significant amount of private content which users will not tolerate being shared, standards vary widely (imagine a vegan flagging every picture with leather visible or a post about eating meat as obscene — if you're requiring this, do you just disable their account once you notice it?), and especially because it's the target of coordin…