News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by jandrese on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @10:14AM (#18066437)
I'm curious what they expect Facebook to do in this situation. I get that these moderators have to look at disturbing imagery, but that's the job they signed up for. It's not like Facebook can only show them nice images, it's their job to look at those horrible images. I don't think Facebook was sugar coating the job description or anything.

This feels like a class action lawsuit brought by garbage workers because they have to handle trash all day long.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by grogenaut on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @10:33AM (#18066613)
And I'm sure in the past those lawsuits and collective barganing got them provided PPE, equipment, training, showers etc that let them do their jobs better and more safely. As well as health coverage and other things for dealing with the after effects of accidents, sicknss, etc.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by jandrese on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @10:39AM (#18066656)
According to the article Facebook already offers mental health counseling and a full health plan for these workers.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by SolaceQuantum on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:16AM (#18066986)
What about more mental health days? More breaks? Are they pressured to consume more than that can handle for metrics? What exactly is the mental health care plan that Facebook provides?(eg. If it’s only one psychologist meeting a month, when standard therapy is often weekly) Etc.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by abakker on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:49AM (#18067400)
<not a mental health professional> It seems like maybe one way of improving conditions would be to purposely dilute suspect content with "Known OK" content. So, you would only moderate at most 10-15% of flagged content and the rest would be family photos, cat videos, cool stunts, etc. Sure, this would mean that people in these roles would be doing some useless work, but, you'd also be reminding them that most content is good content and that most people are posting cute, funny, happy, cool, or interesting things.

I'd bet facebook could afford it.

Also, it seems like having a 3 strikes policy on accounts that post this stuff would be a good idea, too. Protect workers by ensuring that they're not moderating one angry nazi that gets every other post flagged. (maybe they already do this?)

</>

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by SolaceQuantum on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @12:05PM (#18067563)
There's a lot that could potentially be done, yeah. But we don't know exactly what FB has done. For example I'd be totally cool with a kitten room. FB could probably afford to foster a bunch of kittens and puppies, and allow the people dealing with horrific imagery to also take the time to hug a puppy (call it socialization) multiple times a day. FB could make the entire room painted some color that FB sponsored a study to determine was the most soothing. All sorts of things. Some of them over the top. Some of them intuitive. But the courts will decide if FB did enough. Looking forward for the courts to begin setting precedent for this sort of thing...
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by toomuchtodo on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @05:33PM (#18070680)
> FB could probably afford to foster a bunch of kittens and puppies, and allow the people dealing with horrific imagery to also take the time to hug a puppy (call it socialization) multiple times a day.

These are called emotional support animals, and they are totally a legit strategy for helping people cope with emotional trauma.

Knowing someone who used to work on their moderation/graph integrity team, whatever they're doing, it's not enough.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by a_hypotehsis on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @01:04PM (#18068178)
Why not hire more of them, and rotate people off the front line for a period of non-disturbing-imagery? It's not like there's a shortage of moderation work that needs doing.

Of course, that would require Facebook to spend money, and add headcount.

And we know that they only hired these people as a Public Relations exercise.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by HarryHirsch on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:24AM (#18067084)
They would say such things, wouldn't they?

If the firehose of internet garbage can't be safely handled it's time to get rid of it. We've banned dangerous chemicals. Time to restrict Facebook, if it is a health hazard to its workers.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by jandrese on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @12:31PM (#18067812)
Your solution is to turn off the Internet?
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by nindalf on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @12:47PM (#18068001)
Sounds like it. Let's try it next week. All in favour...
[dead]
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by detaro on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @01:01PM (#18068147)
Is that link supposed to tell us something? A person with the same name is working with AI in some capacity, and ...?
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by Raphmedia on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:14AM (#18066975)
> I get that these moderators have to look at disturbing imagery, but that's the job they signed up for.

It's one thing to look at naked selfies or bad taste political jokes.

It's another thing altogether to look at rape, pedophilia and dismemberment. Hell, sometimes it's mix of those three in the same photo or video.

The responsibility falls on the employer to provide adequate support.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by talltimtom on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @01:21PM (#18068352)
I get that these miners have to risk their lives, but that's the job they signed up for.

You don’t get to disregard putting your employees in physical or psychological danger just because you pay them money.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by zellyn on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @10:36AM (#18066639)
It might be more similar to signing up unsuspecting people to operate a jackhammer, when _you_ know, because of past experience, that the vibration will give them nerve damage. Then you hire more people…
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by 3pt14159 on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:01AM (#18066838)
There is a simple way to deal with shitty users. The problem is that it runs counter to the interests of the organization that hosts them. Require every user on the platform to use an invitation code from another user. They don't have to use their real names, but if they do something fraudulent or awful both the inviter and the invitee get banned.

This is why Dribbble is still nice and most other places turn to garbage.

HN is a rare exception. It's likely because the subject matter requires a certain degree of intelligence, which tends to negatively correlate with trashiness.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by dsfyu404ed on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:04AM (#18066872)
>It's likely because the subject matter requires a certain degree of intelligence, which tends to negatively correlate with trashiness.

I think you're confusing "more homogeneous" with "less trashy".

Trashy is just whatever the local minority does that the local majority finds repulsive.

A lot of the opinions conveyed in the commentary on HN that are reasonably well accepted would go over like a lead balloon in some other communities.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by neuroptera on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:37AM (#18067267)
While I see where you are coming from, I think we can all unanimously and irrevocably agree that posting child porn and snuff videos to social media is pretty damn trashy.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by antepodius on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @12:02PM (#18067539)
I think you're sort of missing the point. Posting gore/cp on, say, your public feed on a public internet social media site is trashy by the common idea of civil/moral behaviour, but it would be par for the course on liveleak social/ a tor hidden services pedophile social network. It can be taken for granted that most people think CP is bad, and that sending pictures of dismembered kids to thousands of strangers is rude. Anyone who doesn't agree* will hide anyway, or act anonymously. What's the point in a post like this?
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by pizzetta on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:11AM (#18066943)
> “bombarded” with “thousands of videos, images and livestreamed broadcasts of child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality, beheadings, suicide and murder,”

Those aren't "shitty users" those are vile and criminal people doing extremely horrible things and sharing them. Most or many of those people should be, where possible, referred to local authorities for judicial processing. FB can very well ID these offenders. It's not like they don't collect enough information to know who they are.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by jandrese on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:30AM (#18067178)
Dribbble is only nice because nobody knows about it. Once the spammers show up with their bots they can turn it into a cesspit too.

It's hard to combat someone willing to set up thousands of accounts to get their message out, especially since some portion of those will be "good" accounts designed to make the system look bad if they get banned.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by Retr0spectrum on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:20AM (#18067031)
That doesn't solve anything. How far up the invite tree do you go? If you go all the way to the top, you'd have to ban yourself, the founding user. If you don't go all the way, then unsavoury users will just construct a long invite chain to insulate themselves from whoever they invite. There's probably some more clever graph theory stuff you can do to make this process a bit more reliable, but good luck justifying your algorithm to the people you just banned.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by 3pt14159 on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @05:35PM (#18070697)
You don't give out invites until people have used the app for some amount of time.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by harlanji on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:12AM (#18066948)
> use an invitation code from another user. They don't have to use their real names, but if they do something fraudulent or awful both the inviter and the invitee get banned.

Interesting. Like a regular meatspace party. Gmail used it and I got the feeling of them using it as social network tracking, so I wrote it off. But this is a great application. Will have to check out Dribble if anyone will invite me on ;).

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by siruncledrew on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @09:52PM (#18072070)
I don’t see how anyone wins in this scenario.

If workers win: FB puts freeze on hiring moderation staff. PR benefits begin outweighing the labor costs, and there’s not enough moderation capacity to block the vile content from getting through.

If FB wins: Workers develop mental conditions, moderation staff quits from the job stress, and there’s lots of job churn and not enough moderators to fight the problem.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by GW150914 on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @10:07PM (#18072135)
It’s one of these classic situations that reveal the nature of a corporation as being distinct from an individual. An individual might follow the thinking you’ve outlined, but’s corporation comprised of endless layers of competing management, personal fiefdoms, and a collective case of shortsighted, goal-oriented thinking will not. It doesn’t matter if this is terrible for FB as a whole entity, or moderators. The mods aren’t making the call, and the people who do are possibly more concerned with showing they can minimize a source of overhead that doesn’t immediately add to their bottom line.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by mankith on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:10AM (#18066936)
Facebook could ensure these people have access to mental health care and counseling. In the article Facebook claims that this is already the case, but I happen to know a Facebook content moderation contractor who tells me they do not have access to care, despite having to look at extremely distressing content all day, every day. I guess now it’s for the court to decide.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by jf- on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:26AM (#18067119)
Looks like it’s heading in the direction of verified identities being linked to social media accounts. That’s about the only action that would reduce the amount of transgressive actions performed on FB et al.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by blablabla123 on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @01:33PM (#18068498)
> I'm curious what they expect Facebook to do in this situation. [...]

> This feels like a class action lawsuit brought by garbage workers because they have to handle trash all day long.

Yes. Why are people creating jobs in the first place that obviously suck? It would be far better if they worked 10% on these disturbing images and 90% on something different, like software QA for instance.

I don't want to deep dive into political theory but the mere existence of people whose only job is to dispose garbage or clean toilets makes very little sense, is highly unfair and hardly works. It would be much better if people "cleaned their own sh."

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by Nasrudith on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @02:54PM (#18069309)
Basic economics is why. Would you want to pay $125/hour for a janitor? Because that is what you get have brain surgeons cleaning toliets. While the jobs suck there are more people who can do them. It works perfectly well even if the job is less than desirable. It does tend to pay a bit more than non-sucky jobs of the same capabilities at least due to less people wanting to be sewage divers.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by blablabla123 on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @03:37AM (#18073606)
> Would you want to pay $125/hour for a janitor?

I'm not saying that I would pay $125/hour for a janitor. I'm saying that people who bring in dirt should every once in a while clean it themselves. Like in a flat share but scaled up. Decentralised somehow.

> Because that is what you get have brain surgeons cleaning toliets.

I guess I'm fine with Brain surgeons getting tumor's out of people's brains. Their job is quite exceptional.

> It works perfectly well even if the job is less than desirable.

It does not. People who work these jobs and work in overly dense areas like SV or NY cannot afford to live there - except if they live at their parent's...with 50.

This needs to be thought through.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by Nasrudith on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @09:20AM (#18075606)
The point is that the tasks are commodities and by pushing it onto others you effectively waste the specialized labor. Split it around all you like it is still waste. Sentiment doesn't change the math.

As for things working I believe we are speaking of works in two entirely different ways. Having someone as a dedicated cleaner is perfectly functional even if it is a crappy way to make a living. Call it SBW - sucks but works. As long as there are people willing to work the job it is SBW at worst. If they have people willing to head in then it works.

SV and NYC are both not the densest by a wide margin compared The issue there is a lack of willingness to upgrade transit and housing density sufficient. SV especially.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by AngryData on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @01:37PM (#18068553)
If a soldier develops PTSD is it just 'the job the signed up for' and giving them some token support gestures is good enough when it happens?
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by lwhi on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @03:12AM (#18073471)
They could offer support.

Counselling comes to mind .. in the form of a regular debrief or supervision session

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by kruczek on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @03:37AM (#18073609)
From the article: “We take the support of our content moderators incredibly seriously, ... ensuring that every person reviewing Facebook content is offered psychological support and wellness resources,” said Bertie Thomson, director of corporate communications.

It looks like that's exactly what they do.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by lwhi on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @04:41AM (#18073982)
The means might not justify the need.

e.g. Psychological support could be via a webchat platform.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by vvanders on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:22AM (#18067063)
If someone starts throwing radioactive waste in the garbage I'd sure has hell expect the garbage company to step up and help/protect workers. Don't see how it's any different here.
Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by gldalmaso on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:21AM (#18067054)
The moderators could perhaps not be looking directly at the video but a blurred version of it, along with a tool to reveal some part of it. That way they can infer what is going on without looking at the raw material.

Another thing they could possibly do is to include fictional content in the bulk, so that the moderators could at some level believe no real person went through that.

It is unrealistic to expect any normal person to have a grasp on what adverse effect will have on their mental health over time. You can walk away from being a garbage worker, but you can't unsee disturbing imagery.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by jandrese on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:27AM (#18067137)
I'm not sure it would be a good idea for Facebook to produce fake child porn in order to try to provide deniability to moderators.

The moderators are sadly enough going to become experts on this stuff in a hurry, it's not likely that you'll be able to fool them anyway.

Re:Facebook not protecting content moderators from mental tr... by antepodius on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @12:05PM (#18067560)
Besides, the people hired to produce fictional child porn would just end up suing facebook for the mental damage incurred to them, same as the current case.