Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 500 posts

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#341

Post by wkat4242 »

EdgeSlash wrote: post #271
ternnoburn wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone has to do it is a strong claim. We could not have the services that require it instead.

Absolutely. The platforms could reasonably easy stop allowing anonymous accounts. They don’t because more users means more money.

Uhh no I'm not giving up my privacy because a few people want to misbehave. Screw that. My friends know who I am but the social media companies shouldn't have to.

Also, it'll make social media even more fake than it already is. Everyone trying to be as fake as possible. Just like LinkedIn is now. It's sickening, all these people toting the company line. Even though they do nothing but complain when you speak to them in person.

And I don't think it'll actually solve the problem. People find ways to get through the validation with fake IDs.

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#342

Post by s1artibartfast »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #336

When people are protected from the horrors of the world they tend to develop luxury beliefs which leads them to create more suffering in the world.

I tend to agree with growth through realism, but people often have the means and ability to protect themselves from these horrors. Im not sure you can systemically prevent this without resorting to big brother shoving propaganda in front of people and forcing them to consume it.

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#343

Post by wkat4242 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #317
wkat4242 wrote: post #168

I have several friends who do this work for various platforms. The problem is, someone has to do it. These platforms are mandated by law to moderate it or else they're responsible for the content the users post. And the companies can not shield their employees from it because the work simply needs doing. I don't think we can really blame the platforms (though I think the remuneration could be higher for this tough wo…

So brown/black people in the third world who often find that this is their only meaningful form of social mobility are the "someone" by default? Because that's the de-facto world we have!

That's not true at all. All the people I speak of are here in Spain. They're generally just young people starting a career. Many of them end up in the fringes of cybersecurity work (user education etc) actually because they've seen so many scams. So it's the start of a good career.

Sure some companies would outsource also to africa but it doesn't mean this work is only available to third-world countries. And there's not that many jobs in it. It's more than possible to be able to find enough people that can stomach it.

There was another article a few years back about the poor state of mental health of Facebook moderators in Berlin. This is not exclusively a poor people problem. More of a wrong people for the job problem.

And of course we should look more at why this is the only form of social mobility for them if it's really the case.

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#344

Post by DocTomoe »

yodsanklai wrote: post #215

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…

Doctors, cops, first responders, prison guards, soldiers etc also just so happen to be the most likely groups of people to develop PTSD.

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#345

Post by abduhl »

Dalewyn wrote: post #281
Eisenstein wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the logical conclusion is that they don't agree with your example and think that you are making connections that aren't evidenced from it. I think you are doing the same exact thing with the above statement as well.

In the modern era, most of the things the commons come across have been "sanitized"; we do a really good job of hiding all the unpleasant things. Of course, this means modern day commons have a fairly skewed "sanitized" impression of reality who will get shocked awake if or when they see what is usually hidden (eg: butchering of food animals). That you insist on contriving one zany situation after another instead of…

To be blunt, the way you express yourself on this topic comes off as very "enlightened intellectual." It's clear that you think that your views/assumptions are the correct view and any other view is one held by the "commons"; one which you can change simply by providing the poor stupid commons with your enlightened knowledge.

Recall that this whole thread started with your proposition that seeing live fish prepared in front of someone "will likely leave most westerners squeamish or perhaps even gag simply because the west goes out of its way to hide where food comes from, even though that simply is the reality we all live in." You had no basis for this as far as I can tell, it's just a random musing by you. A number of folks responded disagreeing with you, but you dismissed their anecdotal comments as being wrong because it doesn't comport with your view of the unwashed masses who are, obviously, feeble minded sheep who couldn't possibly cope with the realities of modern food production in an enlightened way like you have whereby you "enjoy meats respecting and appreciating the fact that the steak or sashimi or whatever in front of me was a live animal at one point just like me." How noble of you. Nobody (and I mean this in the figurative sense not the literal sense) is confused that the slab of meat in front of them was at one point alive.

Then you have the audacity to accuse someone of coming up with "zany" situations? You're the one that started the whole zany discussion in the first place with your own zany musings about how "western" "commons" think!

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#346

Post by fc417fc802 »

coryrc wrote: post #153
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #99

Perhaps this is what happens when someone creates a mega-sized website comprising hundreds of millions of pages using other peoples' submitted material, effectively creating a website that is too large to "moderate". By letting the public publish their material on someone else's mega-sized website instead of hosting their own, perhaps it concentrates the web audience to make it more suitable for advertising. Perhaps…

It's a problem when you don't verify the identity of your users and hold them responsible for illegal things. If Facebook verified you were John D SSN 123-45-6789 they could report you for uploading CSAM and otherwise permanently block you from using the site if uploading objectionable material; meaning only exposure to horrific things is only necessary once per banned user. I would expect that to be orders of magnit…

[dead]

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#347

Post by s1artibartfast »

athrowaway3z wrote: post #221
yodsanklai wrote: post #215

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'm not sure your comparisons are close enough to be considered precedents. My guess is even standing at the ambulance drive in of a big hospital, you'll not see as much horrors in a day as these people see in 30 minutes.

My friends who are paramedics have seen some horrific scenes. They have also been shot, stabbed, and suffered lifelong injuries.

They are obviously not identical scenarios. They have similarities and they also have differences.

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#348

Post by kelseyfrog »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #336

When people are protected from the horrors of the world they tend to develop luxury beliefs which leads them to create more suffering in the world.

Conversely, those who are subjected to harsh conditions often develop a cynical view of humanity, one lacking empathy, which also perpetuates the same harsh conditions. It's almost like protection and subjection aren't the salient dimensions, but rather there is some other perspective that better explains the phenomenon.

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#349

Post by IshKebab »

renewiltord wrote: post #264
coryrc wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a problem when you don't verify the identity of your users and hold them responsible for illegal things. If Facebook verified you were John D SSN 123-45-6789 they could report you for uploading CSAM and otherwise permanently block you from using the site if uploading objectionable material; meaning only exposure to horrific things is only necessary once per banned user. I would expect that to be orders of magnit…

[flagged]

Rubbish. The reason Facebook doesn't want to demand ID for most users is that it adds friction to using their product, which means fewer users and less profit.

Re: More than 140 Kenya Facebook moderators sue after diagnoses of PTSD

#350

Post by apitman »

fluoridation wrote: post #339
apitman wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually an interesting question. I would love to see some data on whether it really is impossible for the average person to live off the land if they wanted to. An adjacent question is whether there are too many people on the planet for that to be an option anymore even if it were legal.

>An adjacent question is whether there are too many people on the planet for that to be an option anymore even if it were legal. Do you mean for everyone to be hunter-gatherers? Yes, that would be impossible. If you mean for a smaller number then it depends on the number.

Yeah I think it would be interesting to know how far over the line we are.
Post reply on HN