Facebook sued for exposing content moderators to Facebook A Facebook contractor hired to keep the social network free of beheadings, rape, torture and the like has sued the tech giant and its contracting firm, Pro Unlimited – for allegedly failing to protect workers from the psychological trauma arising from exposure to disturbing content. The complaint, filed on behalf of San …
If I were told by my Contracting Firm I was going to be moderating Facebook, I think I'd be aware of what I was being required to do.
Mind you, I think I'd find the general mindless drivel far more traumatic than the gross extremist material.
The nasty might make you question humanities value as a species, but I think the vast masses of pointless moronic self-absorbed consuming humdrum would eventually force you to the conclusion that humanity was without question a dangerous and mindless immoral voracious locust species and the nastier portions of the population preying on the rest was natures desperate attempt to thin the numbers somewhat.
I sort of agree. If you get forcibly moved into a new department and have to moderate violent content, that is one thing.
If you take a contract, where you are informed beforehand that you will be watching disturbing content, you know, more or less, what you are letting yourself in for. It seems like part of the story is missing here.
The question is, did she take advantage of the benefits? Did she know before hand, that she was going to be in that department? Did she receive the training and still carry on with the contract, knowing what she had let herself in for?
Did Facebook not offer the support it says it offers such staff?
A lot of missing information, which makes it impossible to draw a conclusion on whether she is a snowflake or whether she has a genuine case.
If they took a job they knew they were not really suitable for (it happens) just to complain that's bad and should be dealt with appropriately.
OTOH I don't consider myself a snowflake but being forced to read/watch that sort of content as a full time job would certainly not do me good. I don't believe it is suitable for a full time role if the content is that horrific all the time. Even soldiers in battle (yes there are exceptions) are not exposed continuously to that sort of thing for prolonged periods. And the exceptions were certainly not unaffected...
This activity is almost always likely to require human help, even if software can take some of the volume away there will be a balance or appeals that require review.
Notwithstanding the fact this specific claim may or may not be spurious, I do suspect there is an issue of approach that needs looking at.
@Giovani, I agree. the whole approach does seem very callous and I should think it takes a very special sort of person to watch this sort of thing all day and not be affected by it.
But if you know that going in, it is a bit rich to complain sue the company, unless they didn't fulfill their part of the bargain, with training, support and councelling.
"But if you know that going in"
And how can you, before starting on the job? Being told "you're going to be exposed to disturbing content" and then /actually/ being exposed are two very different things.
It's fascinating, however, how the discussion was quickly misrepresented as "snowflakes should have known". The article is clear that the lawsuit is about Facebook failing to help its employees deal with the trauma, after telling other companies how to do.
Snowflakes is overused, especially in this case, wtf? Oh, you're affected by constant images of child abuse and gruesome violence? what a snowflake! says more about the people who use the term like that I think.
There's a good chance they might not have been prepared for the level or constant stream of it, like, not being one to peruse that sort of thing, though I've seen some bad stuff, but even some gross websites out here don't allow certain things.
This post has been deleted by its author
That's not really how trauma works. I knew a London Tube driver who went back to work after the first suicide and again after the second. After the third, something snapped, and he couldn't go back. No one can predict when or if that is going to happen to anyone, no matter what your training nor disposition is.
Its hate speech detection algorithms are less adept, catching only 38 per cent of violating content, with users alerting the site 62 per cent of the time.
Is this perhaps because the users are issuing alerts for speech that is not really hate speech, but rather is either speech that they disagree with or is speech from people that they dislike?
Origin of left/right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_political_spectrum
Although in the USA 'left wing' is generally socialist or communist, whereas 'right wing' is conservative. However, more recently you can see a shift where 'left wing' seeks more government control on economics, and 'right wing' seeks more government control on social issues. Conservatives are typically right of center and don't seek more government control of ANYTHING, nor do they push a social agenda.
Something like that. left-wing moderates are usually social libertarians, and right-wing moderates are typically conservative libertarians. but not always. there's a lot of 'grey' towards the middle.
What is totally wrong in politics happens when you go too far to the right or left, in which case you end up at some form of FASCISM or COMMUNISM, where everyone (except those more equal than others) are FORCED into 'whatever'. It's the FORCING that shows when it's "gone wrong".
You cannot equalize outcomes - those who 'feel' you can (those who think would not think this way) do NOT understand human nature. 'Feeling' you can means you are a far-left liberal. And you are WRONG. The only equalized outcomes will be EQUALLY MEDIOCRE [except for those 'more equal' than others - see Venezuela]
You started off that second post quite accurately (I'm not sure how much was quoted from wiki, or how much was your own, but even if it was from wiki, you quoted it)
However, again, you spoilt it with your last paragraph.
By the way, using Venezuela as a left-wing example is as dumb as using North Korea or Nazi Germany as a typical right wing example.
@ Jamie Jones
"By the way, using Venezuela as a left-wing example is as dumb as using North Korea or Nazi Germany as a typical right wing example."
Venezuela is a left wing example. N.Korea is a left wing example (not sure where you got right wing from). Nazi Germany was to the right of Stalin yes, but as the Nationalist Socialists and running on the socialist platform it is convincingly argued that they were left too but with state direction of private industry instead of nationalising industry.
"Although I still haven't figured out what the actually definitions of left wing and right wing"
Left wing = progressive ie everything is crap so lets change it all. Everything bad in society is the fault of the imagined (white, male, rich) oppressor who must be deposed and ground to the dust. It's a given that everyone in theory is equal and should not get ideas above their station. This allows the actual rich and powerful who control everything to stay in control. Anyone objecting to the dogma is a subhuman traitor. Requires a strong central authority who will protect citizens from mostly imaginary threats. Central authority to be enforced by a network of surveillance, secret police / courts, facebook-generated fake public opinion and mind control based on fake news
Right wing = conservative ie everything should stay the way it is, hence no-one allowed who speaks a different language / has a different skin colour. It's a given that everyone in theory can become rich through hard work. This allows the actual rich and powerful who control everything to blame the poor for not working hard enough to get rich. Anyone objecting to the dogma is a subhuman traitor. Requires a strong central authority who will protect citizens from mostly imaginary threats. Central authority to be enforced by a network of surveillance, secret police / courts, facebook-generated fake public opinion and mind control based on fake news
*partly tongue-in-cheek but sadly far too close to reality*
"hate speech detection algorithms"
so being pro-Trump, a Republican, a Conservative, or a non-Democrat non-liberal gets your content BANNED, right? because EVERYONE that disagrees with a Demo[n][c,r]at politician is a [insert pejorative ending in 'phobe'], right?
Seriously, I think their definition of what 'hate speech' is can ONLY be flawed. And that goes TRIPLE if "an algorithm" is involved. I happen to hate what SJW's are doing on college campuses and in the media, and every ELSE for that matter. So is THAT hate speech? I also disagree with pretty much EVERYTHING Obama did and stood for. Is THAT hate speech? It seems that according to some, it is. And that's my point.
I say let the 'hate groups' say what they want. At least that way you know where they are, what they're up to. When the 'shock factor' wears off, they'll just dwindle into a very small number of fringe kooks, unable to accomplish anything because nobody pays attention to them any more.
but that's not "the agenda" to let them speak so that their folly will be known - instead they, meaning anyone NOT agreeing with 'the left', must be CONTROLLED, or SILENCED, or something similar. This is why censorship is bad. The censors get to JUDGE.
so being pro-Trump, a Republican, a Conservative, or a non-Democrat non-liberal gets your content BANNED, right?
Nope.
because EVERYONE that disagrees with a Demo[n][c,r]at politician is a [insert pejorative ending in 'phobe'], right?
Nope. Only the ones who are.
I happen to hate what SJW's are doing on college campuses and in the media, and every ELSE for that matter.
So do I. I hate it when the right do it as well.
is THAT hate speech?
Errrr. No. WTF?
I also disagree with pretty much EVERYTHING Obama did and stood for. Is THAT hate speech?
Errm, *EVERYTHING*? That probably makes you some impartial bigot - just like trump, who is revoking decissions not because they are bad, but because "obama did it"
But hate speech? Again, no.
It seems that according to some, it is. And that's my point.
No, according to Fox news, stroppy Tomi Lahren, and whiney Lauren Southern it's according to some, but those poor persecuted little snowflakes make up their own bullshit constantly.
I say let the 'hate groups' say what they want. At least that way you know where they are, what they're up to. When the 'shock factor' wears off, they'll just dwindle into a very small number of fringe kooks, unable to accomplish anything because nobody pays attention to them any more.but that's not "the agenda" to let them speak so that their folly will be known - instead they, meaning anyone NOT agreeing with 'the left', must be CONTROLLED, or SILENCED, or something similar. This is why censorship is bad. The censors get to JUDGE.
You see, you started off this paragraph well, but then you fell back into your tired old paranoid "left persecutes the right" bullshit.
I suppose you think mainstream media is biased to the left? Naaah, Fox is 100% trump propaganda network, and the other main channels are largely corporate democrat... in other words, the media are corporate whores, biased to the centre-right (democrats) and the loony-right (republicans).
If you think any of them are "the left", you don't know what "the left" actually is.
"Is this perhaps because the users are issuing alerts for speech that is not really hate speech, but rather is either speech that they disagree with or is speech from people that they dislike?"
No, it's because supposedly "intelligent" automatic filters actually suck balls at distinguishing hate speech from random banter, irony, tasteless jokes or indeed normal conversation.
From experience, the horrors that content moderators are exposed to is really quite horrific. The general Facebook user has no real understanding of the absolute depths of depravity and disturbing imagery some people post on a daily basis.
Some do it purely because they find beheadings funny.
Some do it to prove a point (PETA), which most often has the opposite effect
Some do it as revenge against others who have 'wronged' them
Whatever the reason, content moderators are given no real counselling, and certainly are not paid enough for the exposure of terror they see every day, so you don't have to.
And, typically, the only real time you hear about moderators, is when they decide to censor something that some people think shouldn't be. Regardless if the rules, or interpretation of such, are broken; too many people forget that the use of social media is at the behest of the service provider, and not a right that everyone has - the number of people who complain when an image is taken down that, while breaking specific rules, is also considered a 'breach of free speech' or whatever nonsense they come out with, forget that it's entirely up to the platform if they wish to keep it up or not.
And yes, while it is true that people more or less know what they're signing up for when they choose to moderate any social media UGC, it doesn't make it any less horrifying for them when they come across content which is just beyond normal human tolerances for either gore, suffering or deviance. So it is unsurprising that people feel they can sue such firms, if they feel their time and effort to, let's face it - make these companies money, is undervalued by not offering proper support and training for such unpleasant content.
Generally speaking, the human race is a group of despicable beings, who delight in the pain and suffering of other people.
Because if you are hired to be a content moderator, you're typicaly only ever going to see (content that needs to be moderated) images that are worse than terrible. If you can't take it, resign, quit, go on strike, etc. do whatever you have to do to not do that job except for taping your mouse to the table, turning off your monitor, and clicking 'allow' for 8 hours/day.
She's a damn actress, so I'm also concerned who's going go show up in court. She's also into AI and veganism, which is a terrible combination for someone who's expected to watch cats, dogs, cows, horses, and humans being minced.
I wonder if she didn't fail to get hired by facebook in one of her specialty fields, and picked this god-forsaken job just to get back at them for not hiring her directly.
On the other hand, you might expect that if you take on that sort of job, you'd at least get the support you needed to do it well. Which, apparently, is not something Facebook deems necessary.
Burnout is pretty bad in any job but having to deal with full-on horror all day long it's probably going to be particularly bad when that hits.
At the very least it seems Facebook have failed to put in place adequate systems, monitoring and relief which would avoid their employees reaching such a state.
"Burnout is pretty bad in any job but having to deal with full-on horror all day long it's probably going to be particularly bad when that hits."
There's looking at pictures of bad stuff, and then there's dealing with bad stuff.
A friend of mine was an EMT. She dealt with bad stuff, not just pictures but full on interaction.
- we were watching a TV show where they depicted a brain, sans skull. Her comment: 'They really do look like that. I pulled one out of the back seat after a really bad car crash.
- talking to a roughly 20 year old girl asking them to save her. She had been hit by a train, her lower body crushed and legs amputated. There was no way she was going to make it to the hospital.
- another girl, about 18, thanking them for saving her after a failed suicide attempt overdosing on OTC pain killers, and how she had realized she wanted to live... they'd pumped her stomach, kept her breathing, and so on. My friend was glad she didn't have to tell her that her liver was pretty much done, and she would live a few more weeks at best.
Real life can be rather more challenging than horrible horrible videos and images, for a fair number of professions. I know it was a relief for me to change jobs and say 'great, if I make a mistake in *this* job, no one is going to die'... and I wouldn't have had to actually be present when it happened in the previous job.
I've been a museum curator for several decades (now retired) and I estimate 90% of the visitors are very nice people. 9% are rather clumsy, and might break things. And 1% are pure brass reciprocating bastards who shouldn't have been allowed in the door. This is only a rough estimate, and I suspect social media has more of the reciprocating sort.
That's why I don't go on Facebook or Twitter.
"I've been a museum curator for several decades (now retired) and I estimate 90% of the visitors are very nice people. 9% are rather clumsy, and might break things. And 1% are pure brass reciprocating bastards who shouldn't have been allowed in the door. This is only a rough estimate, and I suspect social media has more of the reciprocating sort.
That's why I don't go on Facebook or Twitter."
Yet, the difference is, the museum people are in plain sight while on da internet, people (think they) are hidden.
Therefore, I think 1% of the reciprocating bastards population is largely underestimated, here. More like 3%, sadly.
No, in reality it'll be a lot less than 1%.
It just looks more, because the really bad ones are something you notice, and stick in the memory.
You see the same in other walks of life: think back to last time you got infuriated by the tiny-but-conspicuous minority of idiot [select category of road users] doing idiotic/terrifying things, and compare the inconspicuous thousands just going about their business.
I would like to point out that , at least in Quebec , jurors who have no choice in the matter , are exposed to , sometimes , unbelievable violence and prosecution tactics that leave them in pts and are given NO support whatsoever for their trouble. I know .. i was one in a gruesome murder. As far as companies go they should be required by law to provide counseling and support to the people they expose , even if that's the moderator choice to be there , and make sure they are well taken care of when they feel a need to. The job is insane because humans are insanely violent. I hope they get taken care of and that this judgment will favor them , favor support and create a precedent for society as a whole.
"I would like to point out that , at least in Quebec , jurors who have no choice in the matter , are exposed to , sometimes , unbelievable violence and prosecution tactics that leave them in pts and are given NO support whatsoever for their trouble."
Here in Australia, I recently had jury duty. From the very beginning various support services where offered for those sitting through nasty cases. I didn't get anything nasty, so no idea if the support services are any good.
I was going to say that about juries. No choice. And for some of us (among whom reg-reading INTJs might well be prominent), there's the potential for long-term trauma over ones own guilt in reaching a verdict one suspects to be wrong, once the reality-distortion field created by the career Liars in court has worn off.
As for gruesome everyday scenes, the career to worry about would be emergency services. Police, fire service, ambulance service/paramedics. Or indeed social services.
> at least in Quebec , jurors who have no choice in the matter ...
Not entirely true. Any juror can just walk out, publicly declare they are going to find the defendant innocent no matter what the evidence, or do any number of things to remove themselves from proceedings.
That might not be pain free but there is always choice. Living on your knees, dying on your feet, making a stand for what is right; is an inalienable right for everyone.
Then complaining you have to empty bedpans and other gross stuff. If there was a way to shield contractors from these horrors Facebook wouldn't need to pay people - they'd use whatever system they were using to block that stuff from the contractors and block it for everyone!
It's probably more between this and emergency services cleaning up after messy accidents & train suicides.
You may go in understanding that this is what the job entails and assuming that you'll get correct training on how to cope with it, because it's not like many people go out of their way to watch this shit before applying for these jobs, but when your bum hits that seat and you're served up shift after shift of the worst the internet can dredge up..
Yeah, you may not be cut out for this, it may also affect you in ways you didn't contemplate when you signed up for it. If FB didn't have adequate training or proper support during the job then it needs to be looked at
I am friends with someone who works in a "law enforcement" field. I wont go into too much detail what the agency or their role is.
One of their jobs is to view criminal content such as this and child abuse to assess so they can pursue, arrest and gather information for assessment and refer to the courts. They have told me it is rather harrowing to say the least. They manage semi-ok. As well as one can I suppose. They told me that at work after they view this material they are told to play Tetris because that helps activate other areas of the brain to get their mind off it (don't ask me, I'm not a psychologist). More aggressive "relief" such a first person shooter just makes them more angry and fuels the anxiety, so Tetris it is.
I'm glad that people like my friend and Selena do this work so we don't have to deal with it and can maybe stop/reduce it occurring but they really need all the help and support they can get.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
