251–260 of 268 posts
I'm surprised there hasn't been a revenge movie where one of these moderators use their access to find out where these people live and start hunting them down like some sort of batman-like person. I could see a movie like this being a means of making the more general population aware of the terrible stuff content moderators have to watch.
I did not like the movie much to be honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. One disastrous livestream in the history of the feature, with further controls added almost immediately as a result.
Neither Youtube nor Facebook currently are able to filter all these incidents. This happened after Christchurch: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1853804/mass-sh... I could swear there was also a Christchurch copy-cat attack in Europe, but I can't remember sufficient details about it to find an article. Perhaps that one wasn't streamed on FB. I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of Facebook atrocities (I c…
(That's before we factor in unintended consequences such as the risk that a critical mass of moderators decide the garbage is signal and start passing it. It's more risk than FB wants to take on for a problem they already solve via paid employees).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article was last updated 2006 and does not take into account ISIS or Mexican drug cartel videos, which arguably meet your first definition and many would consider snuff.
One could hardly make the argument that those videos were made to entertain anybody for their enjoyment. Terrorists make videos to terrorize , i.e. scare , people, not for people to enjoy.
Regardless my point was just that in my experience many would consider them 'snuff' even if it doesn't meet the exact technical definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The tricky thing is that it's relatively hard to precisely track identity and intentional authorship on the internet. It's also easy to imagine somebody losing their internet privileges, because some botnet hijacked their printer and used it to spread X-rated content. In the analogy, it's hard to disambiguate between drivers and vehicles. This basically makes the entire plan unfeasible. Given the current general in…
> ... digital ID. However, that is seriously actually dystopian and would brutally murder all of the privacy people have Do you really need exactly the same level of privacy for all the cases though? How about having a corner of the internet which is an ultimate walled garden - with access restricted to someone with validated government IDs and everyone's activity tracked and transparent to everyone else? This will w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The tricky thing is that it's relatively hard to precisely track identity and intentional authorship on the internet. It's also easy to imagine somebody losing their internet privileges, because some botnet hijacked their printer and used it to spread X-rated content. In the analogy, it's hard to disambiguate between drivers and vehicles. This basically makes the entire plan unfeasible. Given the current general in…
Yep, that's why I suggested the biometric ID. But I agree, it's dystopian. I think such a system would encourage the development of two parallel webs: the above-ground, requires-ID-for-every-http-request web (Facebook, Amazon), and a somewhat shadier, sometimes-or-never-requires-ID-except-in-exceptional-circumstances internet. Kind of like how bars and grocery stores are supposed to verify your age, but many don't. O…
Especially so under oppressive regimes, I think China has already displayed how internet would end up if we went that route. Restrictive, dangerous for dissidents, without any real privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could hardly make the argument that those videos were made to entertain anybody for their enjoyment. Terrorists make videos to terrorize , i.e. scare , people, not for people to enjoy.
Making the argument that is at least partially made for the entertainment of other terrorists doesn't strike me as outlandish. Personally I wouldn't make that argument though. Regardless my point was just that in my experience many would consider them 'snuff' even if it doesn't meet the exact technical definition.
And those people would simply be wrong.
I mean, let’s back up a bit. Why is it important whether or not “snuff” films exist? Because many people want to believe the common urban legends about it – i.e. that there exists an (be it ever so small) underground production and market for it, even though, by all accounts, this does not exist, and has never existed. Believing such urban legends helps people feel justifiably horrified and helps validate their cynicism; basically the same reason why many people believe many other urban legends. However, no movies fitting that particular model have ever been found to exist.
If anyone wants to to be picky about the definition and claim that some movie or other fits the definition of “snuff”, or is “considered” to fit even though it doesn’t(!), this is only because they want to be able to say “see, snuff films exist!”, and thereby validate their preexisting belief in the urban legend. But this is a motte-and-bailey fallacy; it tries to defend the urban legend (which is hard) by trying to defend a technical definition of a word to be slightly wider than it really is (which is comparitively easier). Luckily, even though it is easier to defend, this latter position is still demonstrably wrong.
That was good article and I think something really needs to be done to make content moderation more humane. This quote from the article “It gets to a point where you can eat your lunch while watching a video of someone dying. … But at the end of the day, you still have to be human.” reminded me of a similar article published by WIRED six years ago [1]. Eight years after the fact, Jake Swearingen can still recall the…
It would be great if there were a way to make content moderation more humane, but perhaps this is like saying that it would be great if we could make hospital emergency room work more humane. It is unavoidably traumatic, and ER staff are known to detach and use dark humor as a coping mechanism. Content moderation is a similarly noble and difficult profession.
Oh I'm sure FB could think of a few ways.
A decent compensation structure might be a good place to start.
That was good article and I think something really needs to be done to make content moderation more humane. This quote from the article “It gets to a point where you can eat your lunch while watching a video of someone dying. … But at the end of the day, you still have to be human.” reminded me of a similar article published by WIRED six years ago [1]. Eight years after the fact, Jake Swearingen can still recall the…
> ... make content moderation more humane. Modest proposal: Find people who enjoy horrific content, and have them rate it. Then black-hole whatever they rate as most extreme. I was is a dark place after 9/11, both from the trauma of that, and some personal issues. So I spent considerable time on Rotten, Something Awful, and worse. Based on that experience, many would likely do content moderation for free.
Yup - these are exactly the kind of people you want to rub shoulders, and stock your company's ranks with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be great if there were a way to make content moderation more humane, but perhaps this is like saying that it would be great if we could make hospital emergency room work more humane. It is unavoidably traumatic, and ER staff are known to detach and use dark humor as a coping mechanism. Content moderation is a similarly noble and difficult profession.
It would be great if there were a way to make content moderation more humane, Oh I'm sure FB could think of a few ways. A decent compensation structure might be a good place to start.
I still maintain expecting companies to do this on their own is a category error.
Companies think moderation is a cost center. Even if the moderators do the best possible job, they aren't adding value, only removing liabilities. The company is the wrong entity we should be asking for solutions to this problem. They are going to minimize costs and shift liabilities to 3rd parties (which will in turn hire independent contractors and play shell games in case they are sued).
We have to demand adversarial outside actors (government, labor unions, lawyers, non-profits, mental health professionals, etc) to start shaping the direction of the solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... digital ID. However, that is seriously actually dystopian and would brutally murder all of the privacy people have Do you really need exactly the same level of privacy for all the cases though? How about having a corner of the internet which is an ultimate walled garden - with access restricted to someone with validated government IDs and everyone's activity tracked and transparent to everyone else? This will w…
Do you think that the free internet won't be slowly strangled until there's none? People will find so many reasons to kill privacy, "think of the kids", "think of the crime", "think of the spies". So on and on, we've seen it happen, I think China and other oppressive regimes have displayed that already.
In places like China, maybe! In places like the US, definitely not. After all, US Supreme Court literally allowed neo-nazis to march in public defending their freedom of speech[1].
> People will find so many reasons to kill privacy
They might, but they will always have to play catch up with the technical solutions (cryptocurrencies, strong encryption) etc. As long the fundamental protocol remains open, you can recreate your own stack.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...