That sounds like the correct framing. If you think about physical dangers, these are "well understood and handled". It's not just a question of accurate danger assessment, there's also the assumption that the safety equipment provided is sufficient, that the exposure levels are within tolerance, etc. It's just that instead of dosemeters and hazmat suits, it's, say, minutes of content and job-provided therapists.
To take a cynical view, it's somewhat hard to predict the scope of danger. Some people might cry uncontrollably watching Bambi, some people won't budge at the grittiest stuff at somethingawful.
Best the humanity can do, it seems, is to display the disclaimer of "violent" content ahead.
The lawsuit involves 2 workers who claim to have developed PTSD. Perhaps they'll find a few more to join the lawsuit. How many employees had Microsoft had in comparable roles over the past decades? A few hundred?
I currently work at a giant corp and I see this mentality everywhere and I see nepotism in action because of it. I need to find a new job. What I don't have to do is hang around.
(Assuming these people knew what they were getting into)
"they were forced to remain there for 18 months before they could request a transfer"
So did your parents. Would you wish this upon them?
I had a shitty childhood though.
Edit - also my parents never had a home and a mortgage...
I would take the concept that they experienced a workplace injury and weren't informed of the scope of danger that it may pose.
Sure everyone has the right to refuse to do a job but changing jobs requires the resources to do so. If you have some type of leverage such as a house or bills to pay then thats an issue. The other problem is how do you perform this moderation?
Possibly you could restrict the amount of time someone is exposed to this and then change people out once they have reached some type of exposure but thats primarily speculative.