Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

Post by 2ndorderthought » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:43 PM UTC

esyir wrote: post #210

2ndorderthought wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do car companies sell cars without air bags, or seat belts? What about cars that haven't been crash tested? What happens to them if they don't do this do you think? Would you drive a car optimized for profit that didn't have those safety features? How about on a highway? Daily?

We're talking about CSAM right? Which all platforms remove proactively, build models to remove and essentially always respond to when informed. Demanding some perfect immediate magic response there is the equivalent of asking car manufacturers to prevent all deaths.

Post by advisedwang » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:43 PM UTC

jaidhyani wrote: post #154

talkingtab wrote: post #18

Meta said the contracting "did not meet (meta's) standards". I am sure that is true. meta's "standard" is not to reveal the illegal, immoral, unethical things meta does. No matter what the harm. Maybe a company with those standards should not get our business. Oops, no wait, maybe they mean the Friedman Doctrine standards? In that case they are entitled to do any and every thing to make a profit. No matter what the h…

I used to work for Meta. I quit largely because of intense frustrations with the company. Meta has made a lot of mistakes, overlooked a lot of harms, and made a lot of short-sighted, selfish choices. Many things about the world are worse than they could be because of choices Meta has made. So that when I say that they really do have a zero tolerance policy for anyone using their internal systems to violate user priva…

Post by GrinningFool » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:44 PM UTC

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #186

prepend wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else do you want companies to remove and prevent CSAM? It seems like you must have some human involvement to train and monitor. It’s a terrible job, I wouldn’t want to do it, but someone needs to. Perhaps one day, AI will be accurate enough to not need it, but even then you need someone to process complaints and waivers (like someone’s home photos being inaccurately flagged).

> How else do you want companies to remove and prevent CSAM? Different situation. Facebook has to do CSAM moderation because it's a publishing platform. People will post CSAM on facebook, so they must do moderation. And "just don't have facebook" isn't a solution because every publication of any sort has to deal with this problem; Any newspaper accepting mail has this problem. (Albeit to a much more scaled down versi…

Post by nullsanity » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

bilekas wrote: post #222

rkagerer wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many things about the world are worse than they could be because of choices Meta has made. If Facebook were designed with a different set of incentives that prioritized the user, fostered positive engagement, and better respected individual's privacy and data sovereignty - setting a better standard for the whole industry - I feel there wouldn't be all this fuss today about banning social media accounts.

It's likely they wouldn't be as profitable too though, and their mandate to shareholders is to make number go up.

Post by allthetime » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 3:51 PM UTC

malshe wrote: post #112

A question for the HN folks who work for Meta - Is the pay so good that it makes it worth working for such a morally bankrupt organization?