Facebook Moderators Speak Out About Poor Working Conditions in Ireland(vice.com)
vice.com
Facebook Moderators Speak Out About Poor Working Conditions in Ireland
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7mqj4/watch-facebook-moderators-speak-out-about-poor-working-conditions-in-ireland
109 comments
I deal with FB mods in Athens, Greece. This job is subcontracted to tech support company that usually handles phones. Low skilled, unqualified work, done mostly by students for a year after school. Working conditions and pay are ok for Greece. There is no trauma, worst stuff is soft core p#rn. Most of them work from home, as mandated by Greek gov.
If they WFH, then nothing will prevent them from 'copying' any material they want, even if by cellphone photo of the computer screen, no?
Well, in office there was very strict no smart phone policy. Privacy laws were big issue when WFH started in march. This company also does phone support for other clients, and handles credit cards. There are huge fines. I am not sure how they made it compliant for FB. Propably sensitive stuff is still handled from office.
But if you have privacy expectation on fb...
But if you have privacy expectation on fb...
They certainly hide also your personal information like name, peofike picture, etc... So at the end its just moderating texts or pictures without an author? Maybe they also automatically replace names in text?
I dont think that would hurt anyone then
I dont think that would hurt anyone then
Well if the content is being reported it is more likely public already or "almost public" (a big group or someone with lots of contacts)
So I think the privacy expectation for that kind of thing is low.
So I think the privacy expectation for that kind of thing is low.
Child abuse pictures/videos can still be shared or sold online easily without PII. Other exceptions are celebrities or the difficulty in identifying PII in text.
Couldn't you just watermark all photos before showing them to workers? Probably wouldn't stand to sophisticated attacks but would guard against theft from "low-skilled" employees...
Facebook is the Silkroad 3.0 LOL
Why would anyone use FB for that? It is already very hard to run legal sex related groups on FB. Registration is pain etc..
Some other social networks are full of porn, but even those have zero tolerance for this.
Why would anyone use FB for that? It is already very hard to run legal sex related groups on FB. Registration is pain etc..
Some other social networks are full of porn, but even those have zero tolerance for this.
How do these mods avoid the disturbing material?
The information I've encountered on this topic is a pile of employees and journalists on one side painting a grim picture of life as a FB mod, and this one throwaway account on HN implying it's not so bad. Forgive me if I find that hard to believe.
The information I've encountered on this topic is a pile of employees and journalists on one side painting a grim picture of life as a FB mod, and this one throwaway account on HN implying it's not so bad. Forgive me if I find that hard to believe.
I was an early-ish Facebook employee, and started before they contracted out moderation. I once passed a content moderator in the lunch room, flipping through flagged images, about twenty per second. Presumably she was just reviewing user & automatic flags for accuracy.
What they see is: Penis. Pages and pages of penis. Penis in all shapes and sizes and orientations and conditions. But it was all penis.
What they see is: Penis. Pages and pages of penis. Penis in all shapes and sizes and orientations and conditions. But it was all penis.
Porn detection with Deep Learning is 99% solved problem, I bet those moderators only get to view content where the model reports lower confidence, the rest is automatically removed. The same for gore etc.
Think how many image posts and messages there are on Facebook and Messenger. Assume your Deep Learning model has 99.9% recall. It will still miss millions per day.
That's conceivably manageable if you're Facebook's size with tons and tons of moderators, while improving the data set.
Which is exactly what they do! For better or worse.
20 images per second x 8 hours a day is half million images per day per employee (quoted by gp, though its seem to be unsustainable), and Facebook has an army of content moderators so they probably manage somehow.
“Oh, look, a hot dog!”
Blind luck or maybe there isn't as much disturbing material on Facebook as one is lead to believe.
Your feed is pretty much posts from friends, groups, things you follow, and ads. If your friends aren't sharing old rotten.com posts and posting dick pics, it's probably pretty good.
It’s a numbers game. For every piece of truly disturbing material there are probably thousands of dick pics.
That would surprise me greatly. In my online life I've seen stomach-turning troll content everywhere from Duolingo to bitcoin forums. But really, hasn't everyone?
Not really, no.
I actually only added that line as a postscript to not sound like I was making some kind of feeble boast. Ie: 'I've seen things you people wouldn't believe: racist memes on Etsy, animal carcasses on glassdoor.com...'
And I actually really wonder if other people see such things, because I really don't. Not saying they don't exist, but they don't seem to get pushed into my "timelines". What you could find if you were looking for it I don't know.
I've seen Goatse, though - maybe it's just that everything else pales in comparison.
I've seen Goatse, though - maybe it's just that everything else pales in comparison.
The barrier for entry to facebook is quite high compared to many other places on the internet, which probably helps!
Maybe some are more thick-skinned than others. After years of being on the internet and having seen all sorts of stuff I barely bat an eyelid nowadays but if you're not used to it I guess it would be more traumatising.
I think it's more a function of age. People in highschool or college can stomach more than older adults.
Younger adults don't shock easily because (a) they typically have less and feel less responsibility, (b) the thrill of breaking the rules tempers natural disgust at seeing edgy material, and (c) they have less life experience to have learned empathy for some kinds of people.
Of course, I might be extrapolating foolishly from my own life. I used to have more stomach for cruelty.
Younger adults don't shock easily because (a) they typically have less and feel less responsibility, (b) the thrill of breaking the rules tempers natural disgust at seeing edgy material, and (c) they have less life experience to have learned empathy for some kinds of people.
Of course, I might be extrapolating foolishly from my own life. I used to have more stomach for cruelty.
I remember well the times my friends used to send each other stuff from rotten. Not that I particularly enjoyed that, but I suppose it was part of becoming more mature?
I liked the freedom of back then though, I feel like today's internet has become too politically correct
> natural disgust at seeing edgy material
Disgust is a cultural learning, not a natural response.
Disgust is a cultural learning, not a natural response.
It's actually both! Freakonomics did a great segment on the difference and the different types of disgust. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/disgust/
Fair enough. The point about aging that I had in mind doesn't change if we redefine 'natural disgust' as 'culturally taught disgust' In general, the older you get, the further you get from mum and dad dictating your behavior, and so the less enjoyable it is to, for example, be rude/crude for its own sake.
So these contractors went all the way to Varadkar for minor inconveniences at their job, essentially internal disputes?
Upset about not getting the same perks as other employees?
Signing restrictive NDAs for a job with exposure to extremely sensitive company processes and customer data?
The more I read about these stories, the more I’m inclined to believe Haidt’s “Coddled Mind” and Turchin’s “Elite Overproduction” theories as the root of much of the problems we’re facing in the west today.
Upset about not getting the same perks as other employees?
Signing restrictive NDAs for a job with exposure to extremely sensitive company processes and customer data?
The more I read about these stories, the more I’m inclined to believe Haidt’s “Coddled Mind” and Turchin’s “Elite Overproduction” theories as the root of much of the problems we’re facing in the west today.
I had never heard of those Haidt’s book or Turchin’s theories. Very interesting reads - thank you for sharing!
Is this a willful misreading? The "perk" mentioned is WFH during a pandemic. The mental health concerns in question are due to viewing extremely graphic content, not at all along the lines of the ridiculous "safe spaces" Haidt's book concerns itself with.
mynameishere(1)
Due to current covid-19 restrictions in Ireland, as a result of briefly having the world's highest per capita cases in early january, the government's policy is:
> Only essential workers should travel to work. You should work from home unless you are providing an essential service and need to be physically present.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/covid19/living_with_co...
Facebook content moderation is unlikely to fall under "essential work" which is more concerned about healthcare, retail necessities (food/drink/medicine/cleaning supplies), and infrastructure. Given that they've pointed out moderators elsewhere can work from home, it's likely facebook cannot demonstrate that they need to be physically present to perform the work.
So yes, it is a matter for the government to get involved in if Facebook or its subcontractors are not complying.
As for Varadkar, getting involved is likely due to the fact this falls under his department's remit (as minister of enterprise), not his position as Tanaiste. But getting _personally_ involved is likely Leo looking for a good PR opportunity rather than the facebook employees insisting on the Tanaiste's personal attention. Or maybe he's just also their local TD, since his constituency is Dublin West where many people in Facebook offices in Dublin likely live.
> Only essential workers should travel to work. You should work from home unless you are providing an essential service and need to be physically present.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/covid19/living_with_co...
Facebook content moderation is unlikely to fall under "essential work" which is more concerned about healthcare, retail necessities (food/drink/medicine/cleaning supplies), and infrastructure. Given that they've pointed out moderators elsewhere can work from home, it's likely facebook cannot demonstrate that they need to be physically present to perform the work.
So yes, it is a matter for the government to get involved in if Facebook or its subcontractors are not complying.
As for Varadkar, getting involved is likely due to the fact this falls under his department's remit (as minister of enterprise), not his position as Tanaiste. But getting _personally_ involved is likely Leo looking for a good PR opportunity rather than the facebook employees insisting on the Tanaiste's personal attention. Or maybe he's just also their local TD, since his constituency is Dublin West where many people in Facebook offices in Dublin likely live.
To a caveman your desire to eat regular meals, live past 45, sleep in warmth and not have to fight to stay alive each day would seem "coddled".
As a society we get to decide what is a reasonable level of comfort and protection and it will always be a value judgement.
As a society we get to decide what is a reasonable level of comfort and protection and it will always be a value judgement.
Some jobs should be paid more. An example is shop workers who are front line during the pandemic and exposing themselves to covid-19 while higher paid people get to work from home. The problem is that it is seen as a low skill job. Same for content moderators. So should they be paid more? Arguably. Will they? Probably not.
Jobs are paid according to supply and demand. Jobs that anybody can do will always be paid poorly.
It’s pretty bad when an obvious comment like this is downvoting on HN. It’s a fact, it’s basic economics but also just how the world works.
If you want mods to earn more create a social network and pay them more.
If you want mods to earn more create a social network and pay them more.
They don't even need to create a new social network. If they want FTE benefits of a specific company. They could always, you know, apply and clear the interview.
> If you want mods to earn more create a social network and pay them more.
This is an entirely unrealistic and unhelpful suggestion.
This is an entirely unrealistic and unhelpful suggestion.
Create an AI which understands the intent of a piece of content then.
Moderation is the job of editors and journalists being lost to social media and the internet.
All those millions of local news papers and reporters who had to make judgement calls on whether some content should be displayed, or whether it was not newsworthy?
That is part of what content moderation is, that process debt that SM firms don't want to pay for.
Moderation is the job of editors and journalists being lost to social media and the internet.
All those millions of local news papers and reporters who had to make judgement calls on whether some content should be displayed, or whether it was not newsworthy?
That is part of what content moderation is, that process debt that SM firms don't want to pay for.
Their suggestion of creating a brand new competing social media network is not a realistic solution to Facebook treating its workers badly. Your suggestion of just creating some AI to do all the work is similarly unrealistic.
They don’t downvote because they think the comment is wrong, they downvote because they’d rather reality not be like that.
This is purely because of exploitation - people work those jobs to guarantee themselves shelter, food and warmth.
If we (as a society) guaranteed everybody enough resources to live, those types of jobs would need to be paid a more appropriate rate, including hazard pay.
If we (as a society) guaranteed everybody enough resources to live, those types of jobs would need to be paid a more appropriate rate, including hazard pay.
Even if we presuppose that everyone working could choose not to work at all, I think your scenario is overly idealistic.
What your scenario changes is that the labor supply gets to be much more selective about the job they take. Supply and demand still exist. Moderating facebook is still a low skill desk job. The pay and benefit floor may be raised across the board, but I don't see what the market force would separate moderating facebook from the other jobs with comparable pay today.
Sure, you could quit a job moderating facebook and not have to worry about keeping yourself solvent. But the same goes for every other job. What would separate them from the jobs that they're on the same level with today?
What your scenario changes is that the labor supply gets to be much more selective about the job they take. Supply and demand still exist. Moderating facebook is still a low skill desk job. The pay and benefit floor may be raised across the board, but I don't see what the market force would separate moderating facebook from the other jobs with comparable pay today.
Sure, you could quit a job moderating facebook and not have to worry about keeping yourself solvent. But the same goes for every other job. What would separate them from the jobs that they're on the same level with today?
> What your scenario changes is that the labor supply gets to be much more selective about the job they take.
Indeed, that's the point: to move away from the current system of the wealthy coercing and exploiting the not-wealthy.
Indeed, that's the point: to move away from the current system of the wealthy coercing and exploiting the not-wealthy.
PTSD?
> What would separate them from the jobs that they're on the same level with today?
I'm imagining jobs with (for example) a high emotional toll, disgust factor, risk factor.
I believe those aspects are presently undervalued (described above as jobs which "anyone can do"), so I imagine there would be a reassessment of how those tasks are valued. They would likely require relatively higher pay before people were willing to do them.
Jobs with generally poor working conditions, or a high degree of managerial control and low autonomy, could be re-factored into jobs with better working conditions, as people are more able to be selective on that basis.
I'm imagining jobs with (for example) a high emotional toll, disgust factor, risk factor.
I believe those aspects are presently undervalued (described above as jobs which "anyone can do"), so I imagine there would be a reassessment of how those tasks are valued. They would likely require relatively higher pay before people were willing to do them.
Jobs with generally poor working conditions, or a high degree of managerial control and low autonomy, could be re-factored into jobs with better working conditions, as people are more able to be selective on that basis.
The thing is not many people want to do this kind of charity.
The only way to solve this is to develop a technology that is advanced enough and cheap enough that everybody can guarantee themselves shelter, food, warmth without any other human involved.
The only way to solve this is to develop a technology that is advanced enough and cheap enough that everybody can guarantee themselves shelter, food, warmth without any other human involved.
> everybody can guarantee themselves shelter, food, warmth without any other human involved.
I was also going to mention that this is actively prevented by modern society. In practice, you cannot forge these things by yourself, as you will soon be stopped by private landownership.
I was also going to mention that this is actively prevented by modern society. In practice, you cannot forge these things by yourself, as you will soon be stopped by private landownership.
I'm not sure, the trend is energy become cheaper and cheaper and technology become more advanced every time.
I imagine technology that some day advance enough and autonomous enough and cheap enough that enable me to live off the grid with supply of unlimited solar energy and robot that can make me food.
The only thing that can fix society is to have no society.
I imagine technology that some day advance enough and autonomous enough and cheap enough that enable me to live off the grid with supply of unlimited solar energy and robot that can make me food.
The only thing that can fix society is to have no society.
[deleted]
> If we (as a society) guaranteed everybody enough resources to live
That would do really weird economic things because either money would have to be something you really want since your basic needs are already covered, or the job would have to be very rewarding because you can basically choose not to go into work arbitrarily.
That would do really weird economic things because either money would have to be something you really want since your basic needs are already covered, or the job would have to be very rewarding because you can basically choose not to go into work arbitrarily.
Well, that's true, but it doesn't make the GP false.
UBI is a coarse hack that can improve this situation up to a limited amount, but it's mainly an open problem. New ideas on this area are very welcome.
UBI is a coarse hack that can improve this situation up to a limited amount, but it's mainly an open problem. New ideas on this area are very welcome.
If everyone was guaranteed those resources, then no-one is going to do the jobs that need doing.
In other words: [you believe] you benefit from this exploitation and you're quite satisfied with it.
No, you're presented a false dichotomy.
There's no "we as society" that can just magically "provide the resources". The resources must happen, i.e. somebody actually needs to do the work. In other words, it's someone's job. There is no feasible way to run a society without people doing the work. In fact, the pandemic has been a good example of this, on so many levels - farmers in UK complaining that the strawberries are going to rot on the fields without immigrant labour (because of border lockdowns), shops almost running out of food (because of supply chain breakdowns, which governments took a lot of effort to protect/reestablish), mask & PPE shortages (because there's not enough people doing the work in factories - particularly in Europe), food deliveries (i.e. someone needs to actually do the work of getting in a car and driving around), ...
There's no "we as society" that can just magically "provide the resources". The resources must happen, i.e. somebody actually needs to do the work. In other words, it's someone's job. There is no feasible way to run a society without people doing the work. In fact, the pandemic has been a good example of this, on so many levels - farmers in UK complaining that the strawberries are going to rot on the fields without immigrant labour (because of border lockdowns), shops almost running out of food (because of supply chain breakdowns, which governments took a lot of effort to protect/reestablish), mask & PPE shortages (because there's not enough people doing the work in factories - particularly in Europe), food deliveries (i.e. someone needs to actually do the work of getting in a car and driving around), ...
Giving people sufficient basic resources for survival doesn't stop them from working.
Everyone being paid more than a living wage is already choosing to do more work than they have to. Why do you assume that people would stop working, if they have a choice? It's already evident that people choose to work without coercion, if they are paid properly.
My point is that coercion via threat of personal destitution is bad and should be eliminated, not that work is bad.
Everyone being paid more than a living wage is already choosing to do more work than they have to. Why do you assume that people would stop working, if they have a choice? It's already evident that people choose to work without coercion, if they are paid properly.
My point is that coercion via threat of personal destitution is bad and should be eliminated, not that work is bad.
If no-one is doing jobs that need doing, then pay for those jobs will rise until it reaches equilibrium. Greed and motivation will always be there.
If everyone was guaranteed those resources, the price of everything would rise so people would still need to do those jobs.
Guarantee Resources -> Higher prices for those resources -> People need to work to get those resources -> Resources are no longer guaranteed.
Even if prices rose with everyone guaranteed resources, why would anyone get off their asses to shovel shit when they can sit at home and get paid basically the same?
This is a sort of complete miunderstanding of how your world works. Utterly.
People work for incentives. People on HN work on their startups - why?
They could get a SW job and leave the stress behind, why do they have to struggle?
Some people will take the basics and be happy - thats their call. MANY others will do what it takes to get paid because that is what they want.
So if you aren't getting enough fruit pickers, well pay more. If apparently your going rate isn't high enough, well then those strawberries are perhaps not economically viable in the first place, since no one in your economy wants to do that work.
Obviously its a lot more complex, but the essence of economics is always - people act according to incentives.
People work for incentives. People on HN work on their startups - why?
They could get a SW job and leave the stress behind, why do they have to struggle?
Some people will take the basics and be happy - thats their call. MANY others will do what it takes to get paid because that is what they want.
So if you aren't getting enough fruit pickers, well pay more. If apparently your going rate isn't high enough, well then those strawberries are perhaps not economically viable in the first place, since no one in your economy wants to do that work.
Obviously its a lot more complex, but the essence of economics is always - people act according to incentives.
Because prices would be so high that you would be unable to pay rent or eat on your monthly “allowance”. You could keep raising the allowance every month and things would soon spiral out of control
This assumes that large landowners and food conglomerates are 100% rentiers.
That the money they make is based on the amount they can extract, and not on the value they provide. You're describing a system which is not democratic capitalism, it is serfdom.
If that were the case, why would we continue to allow that?
That the money they make is based on the amount they can extract, and not on the value they provide. You're describing a system which is not democratic capitalism, it is serfdom.
If that were the case, why would we continue to allow that?
[deleted]
That still doesn’t mean it is exploitation. One person has no inherent right to shelter, food and warmth. If someone decides to give it to them, that is charity.
This sounds incredibly heartless – even cruel – to me. I'm sorry, but I can't put it any other way.
I'd like to think that we can transcend "survival of the fittest" just a little bit. Besides, you never know if you might need some help from others for shelter, food, or warmth in the future.
I'd like to think that we can transcend "survival of the fittest" just a little bit. Besides, you never know if you might need some help from others for shelter, food, or warmth in the future.
If you want to transcend it, make the world that way, for people around you. But neither nature nor the human world is like that by default.
And you can’t expect other people to share your philosophy either. Giving people shelter costs other people time and work. How will you pay for that?
And you can’t expect other people to share your philosophy either. Giving people shelter costs other people time and work. How will you pay for that?
What is your point? We live in a society and we're stuck with each other. We need some rules to organize this. It can't work on a "if I feel like it"-basis.
> Giving people shelter costs other people time and work. How will you pay for that?
We've been doing this kind of thing since modern humans evolved (actually, probably longer). It's just the society got larger and got organized in to nations.
> Giving people shelter costs other people time and work. How will you pay for that?
We've been doing this kind of thing since modern humans evolved (actually, probably longer). It's just the society got larger and got organized in to nations.
I agree that it is cruel and am in favor of charity, but think it is important to be clear on the differences between rights and desires.
I am sure what you just mentioned are actually the universal human rights according to the UN..
I was curious about that; it is in Article 25 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services ..."
And this is why I have a problem with the UN declaration of human rights.If I choose to live on a Sandune in the middle of the Sahara, Who’s obligation is it to ensure these services are provided to me.That said, I would say it’s a reasonable aspiration for society to be structured in a way that this is achievable for people that want to work for it or can’t work for it, but not a right
This is why the UN declaration of rights is kind of meaningless. Rights are meaningless if there is no enforcement.
What do you consider an inherent right, then? Nothing aside from being allowed to exist?
There are negative rights and positive rights.
The former is freedom from other humans doing things to and the second is requires other humans to do something for you.
I believe that only negative rights are and can be inherent.
You can build social contracts that help people get services and materials on top of this, because people care about each other.
I believe that only negative rights are and can be inherent.
You can build social contracts that help people get services and materials on top of this, because people care about each other.
There is no such thing as inherent right, every right must be earned or fight for.
Is/ought.
Rights are oughts, not ises, IMO. (Oughts which I believe in, but still oughts).
Rights are oughts, not ises, IMO. (Oughts which I believe in, but still oughts).
I agree, but this is a matter of semantics.
There is nothing in the physical universe that supports morality.
Rights are components of a moral framework, inherently philosophical - unless you believe in a god. When someone says something IS a right, they are really saying "This is a fundamental assumption in the moral framework I believe to describe a just world"
Rights are components of a moral framework, inherently philosophical - unless you believe in a god. When someone says something IS a right, they are really saying "This is a fundamental assumption in the moral framework I believe to describe a just world"
What is the point of society if we can't look after everyone in it?
You can look back historically to answer that question in many ways. One common answer had to do with organizing, managing, and controlling people for the benefit of an elite ruling class. Which is still a reasonable description of e.g. US society today.
That makes sense and is an interesting argument. Do you know if there are any books that explore that thought?
It's a big topic. I don't have any single book in mind, but I can point you to some sources.
"Elite theory" in political science and sociology is closely related, e.g.: https://www.britannica.com/topic/elite-theory, which has a history going back to ancient Greece. U. Delaware's polsci department has an intro to this in the US context: https://www1.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/power.html , and there's also this article by a prof at USCS: https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/class_domination.html
Much of Chomsky's writing is concerned with such topics, e.g. https://truthout.org/articles/us-guardian-elite-rulers-date-... , which makes the point that the notion of an elite guardian class goes back to the founding of the US, and it in turn was based on ideas inherited from monarchies.
A couple of others of Chomsky's are https://chomsky.info/199606__/ or https://chomsky.info/20141202/ . These are just examples which deal with particular mechanisms of control which are used by elites to achieve outcomes in their favor.
Marx and Engels are relevant here also. Here's the opening sentence of Chapter I of the Communist Manifesto (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m... ):
> "The [written] history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
It goes on to discuss power structures in various types of historical society.
There's lots more out there - is there any particular aspect you're interested in?
"Elite theory" in political science and sociology is closely related, e.g.: https://www.britannica.com/topic/elite-theory, which has a history going back to ancient Greece. U. Delaware's polsci department has an intro to this in the US context: https://www1.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/power.html , and there's also this article by a prof at USCS: https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/class_domination.html
Much of Chomsky's writing is concerned with such topics, e.g. https://truthout.org/articles/us-guardian-elite-rulers-date-... , which makes the point that the notion of an elite guardian class goes back to the founding of the US, and it in turn was based on ideas inherited from monarchies.
A couple of others of Chomsky's are https://chomsky.info/199606__/ or https://chomsky.info/20141202/ . These are just examples which deal with particular mechanisms of control which are used by elites to achieve outcomes in their favor.
Marx and Engels are relevant here also. Here's the opening sentence of Chapter I of the Communist Manifesto (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m... ):
> "The [written] history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
It goes on to discuss power structures in various types of historical society.
There's lots more out there - is there any particular aspect you're interested in?
I think the other posters comment is a pretty pessimistic take. Humans are inherently tribal and a banded together since before we existed as a species. This wasn’t for the advantage of top animal. It offered protection, Stability, and a way to raise young in this environment. Higher primates will share food when they have access but aren’t communes.I would posit that most historic human societies serve the same function. They provide protection from external threats and stabilize chaotic environment. Peasants received protection from their Lords in exchange for taxes. Looking into more recent human history of the US government served much the same function. There was no redistribution of wealth, and no income taxes until they were added on to fund World War I. The idea that governments acting on behalf of society have the goal of Supporting the poor is a relatively new development. National healthcare insurance was largely a development after World War II, and for most of the countries, support of the poor was handled through private charity until late In the 20th century
I was giving a pervasive example of how "looking after everyone in society" has often not really been the main goal of societies. This is consistent with what you wrote, "The idea that governments acting on behalf of society have the goal of supporting the poor is a relatively new development."
> Humans are inherently tribal and a banded together since before we existed as a species. This wasn’t for the advantage of top animal.
Modern governments are not tribal societies, though. As I've observed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25997576 , the Communist Manifesto Ch. 1 opens with the sentence, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles," but adds a footnote about this referring to written history, i.e. history of post-tribal civilizations.
> I would posit that most historic human societies serve the same function.
Perhaps to some extent, but to help disabuse yourself of the notion of the benevolence of the ruling class in this respect, some of the references in my comment linked above might help. In particular, what Chomsky has to say about the elite "guardian class" in the US: https://truthout.org/articles/us-guardian-elite-rulers-date-...
> Humans are inherently tribal and a banded together since before we existed as a species. This wasn’t for the advantage of top animal.
Modern governments are not tribal societies, though. As I've observed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25997576 , the Communist Manifesto Ch. 1 opens with the sentence, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles," but adds a footnote about this referring to written history, i.e. history of post-tribal civilizations.
> I would posit that most historic human societies serve the same function.
Perhaps to some extent, but to help disabuse yourself of the notion of the benevolence of the ruling class in this respect, some of the references in my comment linked above might help. In particular, what Chomsky has to say about the elite "guardian class" in the US: https://truthout.org/articles/us-guardian-elite-rulers-date-...
The job market is not a natural phenomenon like gravity. It is essentially a societal construct already subject to regulation. If it produces outcomes we - its builders and participants - don't like, we can change it. It's true that supply and demand will always be factors, but we can set boundaries.
I'm not proposing any particular change here myself, i just want to push back against that fatalistic attitude.
I'm not proposing any particular change here myself, i just want to push back against that fatalistic attitude.
Jobs are also paid according to the danger they pose, often enforced by government or unions.
Want to be an underwater welder? Sure, here's your danger surcharge.
Want to be a cab driver on the night shift? Sure, here's your surcharge.
Want to be an underwater welder? Sure, here's your danger surcharge.
Want to be a cab driver on the night shift? Sure, here's your surcharge.
> Jobs are also paid according to the danger they pose
Only because it's a function of limiting supply (of willing labor). High danger means fewer people willing to do it, which means it pays more to attract willing candidates.
If there are still a ton of willing candidates, you don't get paid extra because you think it's dangerous work.
Only because it's a function of limiting supply (of willing labor). High danger means fewer people willing to do it, which means it pays more to attract willing candidates.
If there are still a ton of willing candidates, you don't get paid extra because you think it's dangerous work.
Mods have very easy job, they have
to decidee if picture has an underboob, or something is too controversial. Pay is comparable to nurse in hospital.
IT IS low skill job, made by low qualified fresh graduates, and AI already handles big part of it.
IT IS low skill job, made by low qualified fresh graduates, and AI already handles big part of it.
Crime scene cleaning pays more than normal janitor jobs, not because the work is harder but because there is emotional labour beyond the simple job.
You need to consider the effects of work on employees bodies and minds.
There is skill to be treated like a serf for a living and smiling to your masters who claim your labour is low skilled and not deserving of a fair (living) wage.
You need to consider the effects of work on employees bodies and minds.
There is skill to be treated like a serf for a living and smiling to your masters who claim your labour is low skilled and not deserving of a fair (living) wage.
I go to pub with them (well, used to, thosr are now closed). Biggest problem they have are workload metrics (number of qualifications per hour).
Real nurse has to deal with real blood and real gore. If you believe those mods should be paid more, you are out of your mind.
Anyway, this type of jobs will be soon replaced by AI classifiers. Nobody will suffer anymore.
Real nurse has to deal with real blood and real gore. If you believe those mods should be paid more, you are out of your mind.
Anyway, this type of jobs will be soon replaced by AI classifiers. Nobody will suffer anymore.
Have you ever thought that maybe the particular subcontracting group you seem to know so well doesnt represent the entirety of FB mods as a job? You seem strangely adamant that this is no big deal, while ignoring the many reports we've heard over the years of the kind of very bad stuff mods have had to deal with, regardless of your anecdotal experience.
Also, on AI classifiers, I think there are far too many nuanced situations to completely replace mods, and your comment about this is very hand-wavy, and even if you are right, we still need to deal with the problems we have now, not defer them by saying there will be a solution in the future.
Also, on AI classifiers, I think there are far too many nuanced situations to completely replace mods, and your comment about this is very hand-wavy, and even if you are right, we still need to deal with the problems we have now, not defer them by saying there will be a solution in the future.
I am just saying what I heard. Maybe it is AI, maybe it is handled in different office. This company is bussiness oriented, does tech support in multiple languages in large openspace fish bowl. It would be weird to restore passwords on one table, and watch violence on next table.
But I am sure many of them would take this work for a bit of extra money. There are people from Middle East, Ukraine, Romania... We had millions refugees passing through Athens just a few years ago. Reality is simply very different here.
But I am sure many of them would take this work for a bit of extra money. There are people from Middle East, Ukraine, Romania... We had millions refugees passing through Athens just a few years ago. Reality is simply very different here.
More specifically, there are fewer people willing or able to do crime scene cleaning than normal janitorial work. That drives the price up. Simple supply and demand explain it quite well.
People post things like beheadings, all sorts of sexual assault (including sexual assault on children), and so forth. It's not just underboobs and dickpics.
There have been many stories about this, one example: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo...
There have been many stories about this, one example: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo...
People I know do not deal with this type of stuff. Maybe it is AI progress, maybe it is handled somewhere else.
But for $35k/year you would find here many people with great english and university education. And life skills to handle this, for example former police officer.
But for $35k/year you would find here many people with great english and university education. And life skills to handle this, for example former police officer.
AI does not and cannot deal with these situations.
Secondly Facebook has 11 categories of online harm, 1 of which is nudity.
> https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforc...
The list is:
Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity
Bullying and Harassment
Child Nudity and Sexual Exploitation of Children
Dangerous Organizations: Terrorism
Dangerous Organizations: Organized Hate
Fake Accounts
Hate Speech
Regulated Goods: Drugs
Regulated Goods: Firearms
Spam
Suicide and Self-Injury
Violent and Graphic Content
Adult nudity is 0.05%-0.06% of all content views. That is the same rate for violent and graphic content. This means people somewhere, are going through millions of pictures of graphic violence.
You could simply be dealing with the lucky team which just has to watch schlongs.
Secondly Facebook has 11 categories of online harm, 1 of which is nudity.
> https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforc...
The list is:
Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity
Bullying and Harassment
Child Nudity and Sexual Exploitation of Children
Dangerous Organizations: Terrorism
Dangerous Organizations: Organized Hate
Fake Accounts
Hate Speech
Regulated Goods: Drugs
Regulated Goods: Firearms
Spam
Suicide and Self-Injury
Violent and Graphic Content
Adult nudity is 0.05%-0.06% of all content views. That is the same rate for violent and graphic content. This means people somewhere, are going through millions of pictures of graphic violence.
You could simply be dealing with the lucky team which just has to watch schlongs.
Yes, like you said, there is brutal violence and child sexual assault material (CSAM) that moderators have to view. I worked at a non-profit to which Facebook, et. al are required to submit CSAM once detected on their platform. It's been a few years, but the quantity of content submitted from Facebook was truly disturbing.
If you are a contractor you don't work for FB. You work for either a separate company or your personal one.
There's nothing to stop these people from starting their own moderation company that provides all the services they're demanding. Then they should lobby FB to use this company instead.
There's nothing to stop these people from starting their own moderation company that provides all the services they're demanding. Then they should lobby FB to use this company instead.
Here, on this venture capital forum, the idea of starting your own company is absurd.
I have spent a total of 30 minutes of my life on Facebook, looking at a friends feed (I never had an account). There is always a few people who use the platform to express themselves in the most horrible way. 30 minutes were enough for me, there are many crazies out there using the platform for unamicable purposes. No way the moderators worst case is soft pork, unless they are only looking at flagged posts. I am not sure why people think they need the platform to "keep in touch with friends" . What happened to a good old call or a WhatsApp message or god forbid, meet in person.
WhatsApp is owned by Facebook.
And 30 minutes is a pretty short period to get a representative sample of a service used by billions for many different activities (messaging, video calls, hobby groups, marketplace). The 'feed' that you scroll through is definitely a mixed bag, but Facebook has added focus to more specific and niche apps over time.
For my family we use Facebook because it is cross platform (25 people, several with Android, most with iPhone, and some that like to use it by web), everyone already has an account (ages from 25 to 65), and the quality of the service is high and consistent for both messages and video calls. We frequently do a video call with all members of the family across many devices and 'it just works'.}
Also, meeting in person hasn't really been 'allowed' in almost a year. #covid19
And 30 minutes is a pretty short period to get a representative sample of a service used by billions for many different activities (messaging, video calls, hobby groups, marketplace). The 'feed' that you scroll through is definitely a mixed bag, but Facebook has added focus to more specific and niche apps over time.
For my family we use Facebook because it is cross platform (25 people, several with Android, most with iPhone, and some that like to use it by web), everyone already has an account (ages from 25 to 65), and the quality of the service is high and consistent for both messages and video calls. We frequently do a video call with all members of the family across many devices and 'it just works'.}
Also, meeting in person hasn't really been 'allowed' in almost a year. #covid19