This is an argument that the job shouldn't exist at all. That's an okay argument to make (I personally lean that way), but has no relevance to whether $2/hour would be worth it to a Kenyan.

You don't see any logic in the difficulty of a job influencing the wage of that job?

So you think that it's ok to traumatize and scar workers for life, as long as you pay them enough?

I think people can make that choice as long as it's informed. The company should also be providing mental health support as part of the job. Someone has to do it. There aren't automated systems that can do a remotely decent job at moderation yet. I know you don't think it's okay for trained systems or social networks to distribute traumatizing material.

> traumatized and scarred for life.

Scarred for life by reading/labeling text? There is obviously a big difference between labelling pictures or video and text. I would be open to seeing an actually study, but my prior would be that text must be harmless. I would certainly be open to reading any text, especially if the context is that the text is for training purposes.

Some had images, also they did other work for the hiring company.

Sounds like you haven't read the article.

Correct. But then the headline is confusing.

Other content filtering work is primarily videos & pictures. Check out this article: https://www.wired.com/story/social-enterprise-technology-afr...

Sama/source in trouble yet again!