https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22139444

Obviously everyone who seeks a job is under some form of "economic duress" for if they had no need for income they'd either not work, or work pro bono.

What's the alternative here? A YT moderators union isn't going to negotiate away the intrinsic shittiness of YT moderation.

And what I had to deal with was a small fraction of the horror now flowing through the ugly parts of social media sites. I don't think written words alone can convey what people doing that work have to deal with, or the possible long-term impacts. At a minimum, for "fully informed" I'd suggest a one-hour documentary that mixes the kind of things they see with interviews from people who ended up with long-term trauma from the work.

And the alternative is what we've done with all sorts of other dangerous work: making it reasonably safe. Off the top of my head, I'd want to see: 1) tools that minimize exposure to harmful imagery (e.g., ML-driven auto-summarization and by-default pixelization), 2) weekly paid sessions with a therapist, 3) a limited amount of time per week dealing with the especially bad stuff, 4) significant, mandatory paid vacation, and 5) mandatory paid sabbaticals for anybody verging on burnout.

Occupationally, mental health isn't fundamentally different than physical health. Nobody reasonable today would deal with radiation or chemical exposure by just having people check the "I might get cancer and that's cool" box when they apply for a job, because we took the problem seriously. We need to do the same with toxic digital media.

The more nefarious part of it is that at no point does Accenture suggest that they have any responsibility or will assist with said PTSD. Hell, they even imply that they'll most likely fire you if they find you do have it (one, because the document requires you to tell them, and two, because their supervisors repeatedly pressure therapists at the in house WeCare to disclose that information).

There is a sufficient supply of desperate and/or naive people that the market equilibrium is significant and lasting harm to humans. If companies won't solve that problem on their own, then the alternative is regulation. Given the history of physically dangerous jobs over the last century or so, I expect regulation is the likely outcome.

The article linked below profiles a man that "worries that he will not be able to find another job that pays as well as this one does". This indicates to me that all else being equal, they are already offering a premium.

Nor does it sound like he is either desperate or naive. He is well aware of market compensation and he is struggling to decide on the tradeoffs.

Across some invisible line of total societal / planetary wealth, it becomes feasible to provide every human a baseline of economic and biological well-being; moreover, I would argue that such an economic ecosystem would be on net more generative than the "work to keep the wolves from the door" model:

- Economic anxiety decreases executive functioning and ability to plan for the future.

- Authoritarian labor models carry an "enforcement tax"; we can get more done if there's no need for a middle manager caste to enforce compliance and productivity (or the corresponding incentive for workers to "look busy").

- A great deal of real-world wealth creation isn't metered and carries no bargaining leverage, so goes unpaid / underpaid: raising children, community work, charities, FOSS

- As we continue to pluck low-hanging innovation fruit, we benefit from higher degrees of risk-taking. The more people who can afford to gamble on education and entrepreneurship, the more "hits" of unrealized value we'll discover (to say nothing of cultural and creative works).

So basically if someone needs money, they cannot give consent because their judgment is clouded by their desperation?

Negotiation power: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/t...

A kidney, lung, or liver lobe, not so much.

Psychological research or DNA submission enters a pretty freighted grey area.

At least now. Less so in my younger years.

The first-hand and theoretic knowledge was not.

Much of the theory I'd been supplied (mainstream economics, an unbeknownst to me at the time hardline Libertarian professor in my intro course: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22133958), was false.

Undoing the damage of false priors and models, especially under ongoing objection and denial based on those, is difficult and expensive in time, effort, and willpower.

The standard of consent that we apply in other areas would make it impossible for an individual, worker or customer, to ever enter into a contract with a larger corporation (exactly how large can be debated, but Google size with their Google size legal team is definitely beyond that point). I think it would be a good thing to standardize the law in this regard.

This poverty guideline describes the bottom 12% of the US population. The Youtube salary describes the middle 33%.

In the referenced Youtube article, the man "worries that he will not be able to find another job that pays as well as this one does". Not that he worries he will be "forced to live in poverty".

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/16/21021005/

Do YouTube Moderators?

Handling garbage as a YouTube moderator is not unfair treatment, it’s the actual job.

Is like telling the garbage collector that picks up the thrash in your neighborhood to go to a melted reactor to pick up a bag because, hey, his/her job is to collect garbage. Would it be unfair treatment?

Do the YouTube moderators have the same?

I did intend to say that a union can be an effective tool in advocating for employees to an organization that is driven to maximize profit.

For profit companies are often rewarded for minimizing costs. Certainly one can envision that FB might view moderation teams as an expense rather than strategic investment.

Organized labor can be a good counter balance to that.

Every day these moderators need to consume a rapid stream of horrifying videos depicting extreme forms of physical and sexual violence, in some cases involving children. In the FB moderator article they mentioned having to do so as fast as possible and with very few breaks. The employers provide pitiful mental health support, and unsurprisingly a lot of these workers develop serious PTSD and in some cases have committed suicide.

This is treatment that would normally be considered psychological torture, but because these people get paid (rather poorly at that) and signed some waiver then it’s “fair”? A lot of these people take these jobs because they’re desperate or don’t fully understand the consequences. I know that HN community is pro business, but I’m shocked at the callousness displayed by some of the comments here. A society that allows companies to pay desperate people to destroy their mental health is not a healthy one.

Should they get mental health care? Yes. Should they be treated better? Sure. Should they unionize? I’m all for it. But none of that stuff keeps them from handling garbage day in and day out. Because that’s the job.

> It also seeks to make employees responsible for monitoring changes in their mental health and orders them to disclose negative changes to their supervisor or HR representative.

Absolute abdication of responsibility. Doesn't exactly scream "fair treatment" to me.

Let me repeat again for anyone who hasn’t figured it out yet: HR is not your friend.

You have a problem. You think, "I'll ask HR for help."

Now you have 2 problems.

> The Verge’s investigation last month into Accenture’s Austin site described hundreds of low-paid immigrants toiling in what the company calls its violent extremism queue, removing videos flagged for extreme violence and terrorist content. Working for $18.50 an hour, or about $37,000 a year, employees said they struggled to afford rent and were dealing with severe mental health struggles. The moment they quit Accenture or get fired, they lose access to all mental health services. One former moderator for Google said she was still experiencing symptoms of PTSD two years after leaving.

No formal educational credential. This category signifies that a formal credential issued by an educational institution, such as a high school diploma or postsecondary certificate, is not typically needed for entry into the occupation. Examples of occupations in this category include janitors and cleaners, cashiers, and agricultural equipment operators.

I didn't look to see if garbage workers specifically get higher salaries, but could be. But even if that's the case, it doesn't seem like a very high salary, so, assuming that unions are not in a zero-sum game, and didn't need to cause other salaries to lower, this sounds like a benefit of unions. Or is it a drawback? I wasn't sure how your statement was taken.

Given the charged and rather wanton nature of other comments in this thread, it may be being judged unfairly, though that's not my view.

Signing the acknowledgment may be required if you want the job, but you're free to leave. You're not literally being forced to work at YouTube.

Yes, you might really need the job. That's still not force.

And how do you force someone to do something? It's generally by threatening them of some consequence they dread or can't afford. Losing your job sounds like it qualifies to me.

Another thing I want to bring to the debate is that opportunity does matter. It may not be YouTube that is forcing them to work under such conditions, but our society at large. We set standards which create the alternative choices. If we offered better means of making a living to people, they wouldn't agree to such conditions. So this social aspect is really important. We need to all uphold standards of respect and dignity for ourselves and others. This is really important, because those standards define the selection of choices that you are free to choose from.

Not a popular one, but another alternative is to fundamentally change the service. But that involves possibly losing YouTube.

Assuming Alphabet/Google (and most others) won't even consider that option...yeah, you're pretty on point.

And being pressured to sign the voluntary form or risk being fired.

If Google could do something about this problem and are choosing not to then a better analogy would be garbage collectors signing something to accept they have to handle anthrax, and you saying "well, they don't have to be garbage collectors!"

YouTube is an impactful media, and it is moderated by personal judgements of, low paid, unqualified “moderators”, who may or may not have PTSD warping judgements or has political or religious inclinations.

I remember there was a news story of a Facebook moderator whose PTSD caused them to flag a legitimate family photo as a child pornography. I don’t think there is any other interpretation to it than that repeated exposure to images to flag will lead to the standards within the moderator to rise towards infinity sooner or later, beyond logic.

This is a slow fire burning the library of Alexandria that is the Internet, because everything WILL be labeled as “hateful offensive violent pornography” or something, past which point only static noises remain.

This needs to stop.

The alternative was not warning workers of the risks involved, and being sued for the injuries sustained on the job.

It's fairly recent that mainstream, non psych experts are becoming aware people other than soldiers can experience PTSD.

Fun fact: it's actually the 6th most deadly job in America

Raw data source: https://web.archive.org/web/20150208215521/https://www.bls.g...

User-friendly graphs: https://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-to-...

If their back goes out, the insurance and/or company will have to foot the bill. If the company fails to provide adequate training and safety precautions [within reason] they're highly liable.

This sounds a little like YT is attempting to abdicate responsibility, rather than coming to an agreement.

All of that said, I have no insight into the onboarding practices for a job like this one. Are they trained not only in how to moderate, but how to recognize signs of work-related stress or mental issues ahead of time and given reasonable precautions against causing long-term damage? Are they thoughtfully prepared for some of the content they will have to view? I guess I could look this up myself, but I'm also wondering if anyone here has that kind of insight.

Have you ever moderated anything? I don't see how a one sided content moderation can invoke much emotions, like even talking on HN to others is more of an "emotional torture" than such moderation. The problem with moderation is probably more about overloading people, forcing them to keep focus all day long.

What?! These people are watching videos of extreme violence, child pornography. You don't think it can "invoke much emotions"?

As long as I can surpress thinking it was a real person, I can watch it without any problem. After many videos, it becomes automatic. Desensitisation is a real problem with watching things from a screen.

But key factor is control, I know what I am going to watch and I can control whether if I want to. Those people on moderation team may not have such situation.

OP is grossly misunderstanding about the long term cost, though. Short term reactions differ from person to person. Some people can quickly associate real things from a video while others don't. It's akin how people can become too mean and insult others online without feeling bad about it.

But things still float around in your head even if you didn't have an immediate reaction. You would remember it some time later or have dreams about it. It will be horrible.

I moderated millions of images myself, plenty of disturbing images, but for my own project and this is why it sounds like bullshit to me.

Also, your sample of experience, n=1, is not great. And genuinely, if you can look at child porn, murder, and other awful, genuinely terrible things all day, every day, and not be impacted, you 100% need to speak to a therapist. That is not the normal human response to trauma.

Well, that's not what moderation is. Most of it is not actually disturbing content. And when you are moderating it, you don't know what kind of content you are looking at, until you get to the point that you do, but that's the point where you have to block it and move on to the next thing. There is not much possibility for emotions. But it is very mentally exhausting work.

Honestly speaking, whether it be videos of extreme content or fluffy rabbits. I will feel absolutely terrible after a few hours of having to watch it. I can't imagine doing that for months.