241–250 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has a right to be published.
Then what is freedom of speech if every plattform deletes your content? Does it even exist? Facebook and co. are so ubiquitous, we shouldn't just apply normal laws to them. They are bigger than governments.
I'm wondering if there are precedents in other domains. There are other jobs where you do see disturbing things as part of your duty. E.g. doctors, cops, first responders, prison guards and so on... What makes moderation different? and how should it be handled so that it reduces harm and risks? surely banning social media or not moderating content aren't options. AI helps to some extent but doesn't solve the issue en…
A friend's friend is a paramedic and as far as I remember they can take the rest of a day off after witnessing death on duty and there's an obligatory consulation with a mental healthcare specialist. From reading the article, it seems like those moderators are seeing horrific things almost constantly throughout the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would pay in different countries be equivalent? Because it's exploitative otherwise. It's just exploiting the fact that they're imprisoned within borders.
Interesting perspective. I wonder if you yourself take part in the exploitation by purchasing things made/grown in poor countries due to cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watching someone you love die of cancer is also super damaging to one's concept of normal life. Getting a diagnosis, or being in a bad car accident, or the victim of a violent assault is, too. I think a personal sense of normality is nothing more than the state of mind where we can blissfully (and temporarily) forget about our own mortality. Obviously, marinating yourself in all the horrible stuff makes it really har…
... okay. Emergency personnel might need to braze themselves for car accidents every day. That Kenyans need to be traumatized by Internet Content in order to make a living is just silly and unnecessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Humans can render other humans unrecognizable with a rock. They are much less likely to. We have instinctive repulsion to violence, especially extending it (e.g. if the rock does not kill at the first blow). It is much easier to kill with a gun (and even then people need training to be willing to do it), and easier still to fire a missile at people you cannot even see.
Than throwing a face punch or a rock? You should check public schools.
I'm wondering if there are precedents in other domains. There are other jobs where you do see disturbing things as part of your duty. E.g. doctors, cops, first responders, prison guards and so on... What makes moderation different? and how should it be handled so that it reduces harm and risks? surely banning social media or not moderating content aren't options. AI helps to some extent but doesn't solve the issue en…
at least in the US, those jobs - doctors, cops, firefighters, first responders - are well compensated (not sure about prison guards), certainly compared to content moderators who are at the bottom of the totem pole in an org like FB
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Socratic questioning is not cluelessness and your inability to answer does not bolster your position.
Socratic questioning requires the asker to have a deeper understanding whereby they guide with their questions. Do you think that’s what people see in yours?
I'm trying to understand what people mean by 'detachment from reality' and how such a thing is related to 'understanding of mortality', and how a deeper understanding of mortality and acceptance of death would manifest in ways that can be seen.
If 'acceptance of death' does not actually mean that they are more comfortable talking about death, or allowing people to choose their own deaths, or accepting their loved one's deaths with more ease, then what does it mean? Is it something else? Why can't anyone say what it is?
Why it is so obvious to the people stating that it happens, but no one can explain why the questions I asked are not being answered or are wrong?
If this is come basic conflict of frameworks wherein I am making assumptions that make no sense to the people who are making the assertions I am questioning, then what am I missing here?
I'm wondering if there are precedents in other domains. There are other jobs where you do see disturbing things as part of your duty. E.g. doctors, cops, first responders, prison guards and so on... What makes moderation different? and how should it be handled so that it reduces harm and risks? surely banning social media or not moderating content aren't options. AI helps to some extent but doesn't solve the issue en…
I don’t have any experience with this, so take this with a pinch of salt. What seems novel about moderation is the frequency that you confront disturbing things. I imagine companies like Meta have such good automated moderation that what remains to be viewed by a human is practically a firehose of almost certainly disturbing shit. And as soon as you’re done with one post, the next is right there. I doubt moderators s…
This doesn’t make sense to me. Their automated content moderation is so good that it’s unable to detect “almost certainly disturbing shit”? What kind of amazing automation only works with subtleties but not certainties?
I'm wondering if there are precedents in other domains. There are other jobs where you do see disturbing things as part of your duty. E.g. doctors, cops, first responders, prison guards and so on... What makes moderation different? and how should it be handled so that it reduces harm and risks? surely banning social media or not moderating content aren't options. AI helps to some extent but doesn't solve the issue en…
I don’t have any experience with this, so take this with a pinch of salt. What seems novel about moderation is the frequency that you confront disturbing things. I imagine companies like Meta have such good automated moderation that what remains to be viewed by a human is practically a firehose of almost certainly disturbing shit. And as soon as you’re done with one post, the next is right there. I doubt moderators s…
I never seen blood or gore in my life and find seeing it shocking.
But I’d imagine gore is a weekly situation for surgeons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t have any experience with this, so take this with a pinch of salt. What seems novel about moderation is the frequency that you confront disturbing things. I imagine companies like Meta have such good automated moderation that what remains to be viewed by a human is practically a firehose of almost certainly disturbing shit. And as soon as you’re done with one post, the next is right there. I doubt moderators s…
“I would imagine that companies like Meta have such good automated moderation that what remains to be viewed by a human is practically a firehose of almost certainly disturbing shit.” This doesn’t make sense to me. Their automated content moderation is so good that it’s unable to detect “almost certainly disturbing shit”? What kind of amazing automation only works with subtleties but not certainties?
So the things that are flagged for human review would be on the boundary, but trend more towards disturbing than legitimate, on the grounds that the human in the loop is there to try and publish as many posts as possible, which means sifting through a lot of disturbing stuff that the AI is not sure about.
There’s also the question of training the models - the classifiers may need labelled disturbing data. But possibly not these days.
However, yes, I expect the absolute most disturbing shit to never be seen by a human.
—
Again, literally no experience, just a guy on the internet pressing buttons on a keyboard.