241–250 of 268 posts
I can't believe there's so much original content for this. Maybe they could share a db of hashes of known bad videos across sites and government agencies.
They should recruit people on Reddit for this. A large number of them seem perfectly fine with this type of content. There are dedicated communities to all these things. I do not mean this as a hit against Reddit users. It is just that there are small pockets of people who are psychologically capable of tolerating this or even enjoy it. It seems more ethical to hire people from /r/watchpeopledie.
Desensitization is certainly a thing. The first few times seeing those things were shocking and disturbing. Then it got exciting. Then it got boring. I don't actively look for that content, but never having left 4chan, I still sometimes stumble upon it and it causes no big reaction. I think I could totally do that content moderation job, I have to admit some morbid curiosity about what I would stumble upon exists in me. The only content that never stopped to disturb me was violence against animals.
Talking with my "normie" friends about this I realized I am the odd one out. I wonder just how much consuming that content in my youth changed me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A snuff film is a video in which someone actually IRL dies. There are about a zillion of them.
A snuff film is defined by most as at least having been made for the purpose of entertainment of others. Some include the proviso that it has to have been made for profit, and yet others demand that it has at least been sold. But regardless, not even the first level of these criteria have ever been fulfulled. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-pinch-of-snuff/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can we build better AI Nope. That's what the people in charge of our social media companies keep trying, over and over, and it doesn't work at all. AI-moderation is like the Ring is to Golem for them. They can't accept that "cheap and fair" moderation isn't currently possible. > Can you crowdsource the moderation task This is the clear answer, imo, and it isn't obvious to me why these C-level execs avoid it. If I h…
I don’t think Gollum had a Hebrew letter on his back...
There are some things I will explicitly avoid in projects I'm working on. One of them is allowing picture or video uploads to users if the service is free. There's no low-risk, cost effective solution for moderating it, and in my country we also don't have safe-harbour type laws, so any content on the platform is your responsibility.
I had considered using services like Google Cloud Vision or other services for explicit image detection anyway. Most websites it seems when you upload an image it's immediately available, I always wonder if it goes through some basic moderation system or just waits to get reported. I've done tagging jobs on MTurk before it's weird... seeing random people's images.
I think vetting users rather than content is probably the most efficient method of community curation though. If you have an approval process or other ways to validate that users aren't nefarious then you would reduce your workload by a bunch. Most bad images seem to come from burner accounts.
Unfortunately the only thing that comes to mind is a social credit as a service style system and maybe that's not where we want to steer this ship...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had considered using services like Google Cloud Vision or other services for explicit image detection anyway. Most websites it seems when you upload an image it's immediately available, I always wonder if it goes through some basic moderation system or just waits to get reported. I've done tagging jobs on MTurk before it's weird... seeing random people's images.
I would wager most wait for things to get reported rather than be pre-emptive about it. I wonder if MTurk could ever be fast enough for an approval process on something like Instagram. I think vetting users rather than content is probably the most efficient method of community curation though. If you have an approval process or other ways to validate that users aren't nefarious then you would reduce your workload by…
I can get from the user side about the burner accounts. I feel a physical response when I get denied to post a first post say in a sub and I'm like "Excuse me..." But yeah that's definitely discouraging/limiting to stick around before contributing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A snuff film is defined by most as at least having been made for the purpose of entertainment of others. Some include the proviso that it has to have been made for profit, and yet others demand that it has at least been sold. But regardless, not even the first level of these criteria have ever been fulfulled. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-pinch-of-snuff/
I take it you haven't seen the "ISIS burns people in a cage, dance dance revolution edit/remix" video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A snuff film is defined by most as at least having been made for the purpose of entertainment of others. Some include the proviso that it has to have been made for profit, and yet others demand that it has at least been sold. But regardless, not even the first level of these criteria have ever been fulfulled. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-pinch-of-snuff/
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.
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.
These media stories always focus on those who picked the wrong job for their caracter, and then make a big drama of it.
I mean, there are people cutting open other humans daily. We call them surgeons. I would puke right there and could never do that. Different people have different abilities. Simple.
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.
I think that you are wrong in general, but that parallel is right on point. The root of the problem, which is rarely mentioned in these discussions, is that many people enjoying comfortable living conditions believe themselves to be “pure-blooded” and unable to deal with “unclean” things because of the possible “traumas”. (What is an ideal person free of “traumas”, anyway? A vegetable stoned on drugs?) You can easily…