Former employees sue Microsoft after developing PTSD | Hacker News Reader

Former employees sue Microsoft after developing PTSD

mcclatchydc.com

67 pointsdanso92 comments

A lot of people here are taking the position that they weren't "forced" to do it. I think this is a incorrect framing of the problem.

I would take the concept that they experienced a workplace injury and weren't informed of the scope of danger that it may pose.

Sure everyone has the right to refuse to do a job but changing jobs requires the resources to do so. If you have some type of leverage such as a house or bills to pay then thats an issue. The other problem is how do you perform this moderation?

Possibly you could restrict the amount of time someone is exposed to this and then change people out once they have reached some type of exposure but thats primarily speculative.

> experienced a workplace injury

That sounds like the correct framing. If you think about physical dangers, these are "well understood and handled". It's not just a question of accurate danger assessment, there's also the assumption that the safety equipment provided is sufficient, that the exposure levels are within tolerance, etc. It's just that instead of dosemeters and hazmat suits, it's, say, minutes of content and job-provided therapists.

> weren't informed of the scope of danger that it may pose

To take a cynical view, it's somewhat hard to predict the scope of danger. Some people might cry uncontrollably watching Bambi, some people won't budge at the grittiest stuff at somethingawful.

Best the humanity can do, it seems, is to display the disclaimer of "violent" content ahead.

The lawsuit involves 2 workers who claim to have developed PTSD. Perhaps they'll find a few more to join the lawsuit. How many employees had Microsoft had in comparable roles over the past decades? A few hundred?

You don't deserve a job, nor is anyone holding a gun to your head. You chose to have kids and a mortgage.

I currently work at a giant corp and I see this mentality everywhere and I see nepotism in action because of it. I need to find a new job. What I don't have to do is hang around.

(Assuming these people knew what they were getting into)

So what? It sounds like you are using this argument to excuse companies whose practices are causing workplace injury.

Doesn't excuse anything. Sidetracked the conversation I apologize

"Soto claims he was assigned to the team and didn’t have any choice in the matter"

"they were forced to remain there for 18 months before they could request a transfer"

>You chose to have kids and a mortgage.

So did your parents. Would you wish this upon them?

Having a child when you don't already have the capacity to adequately support both them AND yourselves (financially and emotionally) is one of the most selfish things you can do.

Although I don't entirely disagree with your point, but try telling that to someone who hasn't had proper sex-education. Or is told that now they are married they have to have children right away.

See my other comment about my parents. They sacrificed money and I don't talk to them. And yes I do.

I had a shitty childhood though.

Edit - also my parents never had a home and a mortgage...

"Soto and Blauert also allege that ... the company violated state law by failing to provide a safe workplace for them and should have realized how harmful viewing such images should have been for their employees."

They might have some valid claims and expectations in their suit, but some of their allegations don't really sound reasonable. For example, the above. Of course Microsoft knew that viewing these videos is very psychologically disturbing. Hence why they hired moderators to find and censor them, on a voluntary at-will contract. If we're going to fault Microsoft for exposing their moderators to disturbing content, what exactly do we expect them to do instead? Not have such moderators and allow members of the public to be exposed to these highly disturbing videos instead?

The lawsuit sounds a bit too much like firemen suing the fire department because "fighting fires creates an unsafe workspace that is harmful to firemen." If the fire department didn't do everything it can to help its firemen, the lawsuit would certainly be reasonable. But blaming the fire department for the intrinsic and unavoidable dangers involved in the job, doesn't sound reasonable at all.

It's a little disheartening that people on HN fail to understand that some people don't have a true choice sometimes when it comes to a job.

I'm not posting this to shame anyone, but I would ask that before you say things like "well just quit" or "it's on them when they made the choice," consider that not everyone in the world can make the same choices you can, or have the resources, or know-how to make those choices.

Self-reliance is obviously important, and something that our community values, but I think being empathetic to those who either cannot or don't know how is crucial to creating products and services that add value in the world.

good luck out there, y'all.

The one upside of saying "well just quit" is that it creates a community norm of leaving abusive situations while you still can. The objective reality is that these men would have had better lives if they'd quit. It's unfortunate and sad that they suffered, and if the allegations are correct it's awful that Microsoft created an environment where they'd suffer, but the rest of us can learn from this: leave bad jobs early, have a backup plan, keep an eye on your mental health, don't always assume the company will look after you, have enough cash on hand to cover months of living expenses, etc.

Maybe greater attrition rates could have forced MS to improve working conditions, or at least led to higher pay and shorter stints.

yeah i think the issue isn't with the decision, it's more understanding the context around why that may or may not be an option.

Not 100% analogous to addiction treatement but think about how "just quit" isn't really a great way to start that conversation for many addicts. Obviously if they could, they would.

With that said, if there was an open and receptive community that worked to understand the situations of all these people (ie, their financial / family / mental situation), then you create a space where people feel empowered to "just quit"

But creating that space is where actual progress can happen.

On top of that, I think a large crux of the suit here is mostly due to the fact that Microsoft refused to shell out for treatment after the fact, despite doing so for other departments with similar jobs. While the plaintiffs do seem to have a problem with how they were hired, the actual suit seems to be solely based on the fact that their compensation did not cover any medical expenses they have incurred due to their work related trauma with a token clause about warning people properly.

Additionally, a lot of times people might end up in a position where they end up harming themselves or others, by the very force of social conformity. "Oh, if this big prestigious company does this, then it must be alright. This is expected. I must meet expectations."

> people on HN fail to understand that some people don't have a true choice sometimes when it comes to a job.

Nope. We do. Just that Software Engineers don't have a Union for collective bargaining rights like the Auto-industry and other engineering jobs.

I once chose to live in my car instead of taking a crappy job. You absolutely have a choice. I really hate this kind of thinking.

So rather than complain, let me ask this to people with kids, which seems to be the people who think they don't have a choice:

What is better? Having a job to take care of kids? Or telling the story to your kids about how you left a place because you didn't believe in what the company believed/ was doing/ etc? It seems the latter would let your child see you as a genuine human being who doesn't allow money to dictate their lives.

I don't have kids and never intend (on purpose), so please let me know if I am missing something.

I don't talk to my parents because they didn't really provide value in my life. But they did sacrifice things for money. Didn't really work out

You're creating a scenario where there are two options. In my experience that is almost never the case. Sometimes you have many options, sometimes you have none.

You're making assumptions about how family comes to be, who you would define as family, and making assumptions on what a person's obligations to family should be.

In all these cases, you're positing a sort of hegemonic perfect person who has total free agency and no history to contend with.

If that's truly you, that's fantastic. Cherish and enjoy that liberation. But just remember that to have that agency, millions of people have struggled without such things.

I think it's great that you've made a decision about whether or not to have kids in a purposeful manner. Many people don't, and I wish they would. I have a kid and I wouldn't trade him for any fancy startup or company founding in the world. Different strokes.

But it also leads me to believe (and correct me if i'm wrong) you've never had to, or thought to, work and live to serve and enable the lives of another.

I think that's totally ok. I'm not judging you there. But I am asking you to consider that others find value in that path, and in our current society, that path is often derided and consider "unsuccessful."

There are many variables, this is true and unfair of me. It was more to get into the mindset of someone else's thinking.

I have however had to work towards someone else's life (maybe not as extreme as a child) and would love nothing other than to serve humanity in a greater way.

I ask because I genuinely don't understand this thinking so thank you for taking the time to respond and not down voting into oblivion. People like you really are why I come to this site!

Not everyone has good parents. Some people need to still figure things out, even at age 30...

I honestly really do understand your situation in many ways. I know what it's like to fight for something better, and to feel like you're enduring all the stress you can because you think it's worth it. It's really hard to hear people who don't seem to have this mentality and to see them suffer. "IF only they'd just make this one choice" I find myself saying. But that's not the whole story, and I know that now after a lot of failure to reflect on my own situation.

I don't think you should throw that passion away. But I do think, as much as you have learned and gained by getting yourself to a good place in your own way, there's a lot you can gain from pushing yourself to see other angles.

Empathy is like a muscle - the more you use it, the stronger and more effective it becomes.

and I mean yeah, I think everyone has a lot to figure out, no matter their age!

I once chose to live in my car instead of taking a crappy job.

With your kids, right? Oh yeah that's right -- you didn't have any.

What is better? Having a job to take care of kids? Or telling the story to your kids about how you left a place because you didn't believe in what the company believed/ was doing/ etc?

If your kids are taken away from you because you're living in a car and can't afford to feed and clothe them... then I guess you won't get too many chances to tell them stories about how principled you once were and how you stuck it to the man and all, way back when. Now will you?

So please let me know if I am missing something.

The whole point the above commenter was making was just because you felt you faced a similar(-ish) situation to those people once -- that doesn't mean that your boundary constraints (and emotional / psychological history) were the same, or even roughly comparable, to what they were facing. And so what felt like a "true choice" for you, may not have been a "true" (or even remotely viable) choice for these people.

In other words, it all comes down to this thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Thanks! Even though you are condescending, I really appreciate the feedback

Thanks. I appreciate your feedback, also.

Let me put this into terms that you might better relate to.

To a person with kids, being lectured about the right choices to make in their lives with regards to their kids by someone without kids is much like being an engineer forced to endure the ignorant suggestions and misguided directives of a clueless non-technical manager.

Haha I love this metaphor. Very relatable!

However I wasn't lecturing (or trying to). Just providing a paradox that might help me better understand parents perspective.

  > What is better? Having a job to take care of kids? Or telling the story to your kids about how you left a place because you didn't believe in what the company believed/ was doing/ etc? It seems the latter would let your child see you as a genuine human being who doesn't allow money to dictate their lives.

I'd rather have a job that sucks in order to take care of my kids. It certainly beats telling them the story about how you quit your crappy job because money doesn't dictate your life. And how that's the reason behind why the state took them away and you can only see them during supervised visits once a week at their foster home. You know, because you can no longer adequately provide for them after quitting your job.

The above isn't being facetious; at least in the US, it's entirely possible to have your kids taken away if you end up living out of your car. And it will not look good when you go up to a judge to get your kids back that the circumstances that led to such an outcome were entirely of your own volition (i.e. you quit instead of getting fired).

Not everyone has savings. Not every country has an extensive welfare system. In some places if you don't earn you don't eat. In those circumstances, are you going to starve or turn to crime just because you didn't want a crappy job?

Actually, it's more rational to turn to crime than work a shitty minimum wage job in an economically disadvantaged area. That's why those areas have crime.

The choices are simple.

Work at McDonalds/Walmart

Max weekly earnings: ~$420 assuming CA minimum wage and a 40 hour workweek

Smuggle cocaine from Mexico to USA

85k - 200k per run depending on quantity.

Rational from the perspective of the individualist, but not necessarily from the perspective of the collectivist. If drug smuggling was just about moving drugs from A to B then it wouldn't be so bad, but drug cartels cause a lot of damage in their wake, including some of the gang violence that is having to be watched by the online content moderators in the linked article.

In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, personal safety and physiological needs come first before social needs.

That doesn't mean that moving up that hierarchy is not desirable. Whilst a life of crime may offer an escape route from a life of poverty, there are benefits to society at large if other escape routes out of poverty are within reach. If opportunities are not made easily available, it's up to the individual how much work they're willing to put in to make opportunities for themself.

To be clear, I'm not saying that criminals are automatically bad, some have been faced with tough circumstances and are just doing what they can to survive, what I am saying is that we should encourage alternatives where possible, as society as a whole benefits when we offer other opportunities for getting out of poverty.

With that argument no one would ever volunteer to be a soldier.

Shitty minimum wage job gives you a incentive to improve yourself so you don't have a shitty minimum wage job. Economical disadvantage area gives you a reason to leave said economical disadvantage area.

> I once chose to live in my car instead of taking a crappy job

I'm assuming you're male.

You also need a car.

This doesn't provide value : ( Maybe you can help me understand where you are coming from instead of comments like these

Meaning: just because YOU have choice doesn't mean others do. People are not referring to literal free will here—sometimes, you have a job you depend on with no way to change the situation without greatly risking your health or freedom.

I think they are implying you might not feel ok with living in a car if you were not male. They are also pointing out you have to have a car to live in one, since many people choose to not own cars, they don't have the option of living in their car because they do not own one to live in.

> I don't talk to my parents because they didn't really provide value in my life

Wow really? You view your relationship with your parents like a Business deal / transaction? "value". Wow. The biggest "value" they provided you was conceiving and giving Birth to your cold-hearted insensitive ass.

Think about that for a moment. I feel bad for your parents, and sad for you.

Many people have abusive parents. And no one owes their parents (or anyone) a relationship.

Here is a rather unbased what-if:

I wonder if this PTSD can be alleviated if the content screeners get more positive feedback about what they do, so they don't feel they are just looking at aweful stuff all day long, so they feel they are actually making positive contributions to society, making the world a better place?

E.g. what if they can take ownership of what they report to the NCMEC? What if they can call up NCMEC and ask about the progress of cases that were opened because of their reporting? What if they get feedback, like "holy shit, they found and saved this child, and arrested the monster!" What if they held (monthly) partie to celebrate their achievements in fighting crime? (ok, maybe not parties, but something to celebrate and give themselves a pat on the shoulder).

I just think they may sleep better at night if they learn that the monsters are now locked up, no longer out there at large, hurting more innocent children.

As a thought experiment, screening for this role from Microsoft's side has to be really difficult. It's a job that needs to be done to protect their users and reputation, but it sucks. If you interview somebody for the position and they're actually enthusiastic about it, that would probably be a huge red flag. I can't imagine a good solution besides machine learning.

It's a shame anyone has to do jobs like these. But forcing people to do it? (I assume the alternative was not to have a job there at all.) That's ridiculous.

I also tend to believe the former employees about the rest of the working conditions. At the very least, the employee has a clear history of having problems with the work, and the company should have been better about handling this. There's no way they could fail to foresee that this work could have terrible effects on someone's mind.

While this case is really tragic, and improvements can be made, I don't think it's fair really to say these people were _forced_ to do this work.

You say that the other option was to not work at Microsoft, well, this means they aren't being forced. They had the choice to not work that job role. Workers are not entitled to shop around within a company for a role that suits them, and companies are not obliged to offer the job role that an employee wants.

> companies are not obliged to offer the job role that an employee wants

Now go over to the "open office plan" comments and watch developers act like they're being tortured if they have to sit next to someone who might talk and it's their god-given right to demand a soundproof private office.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13373526

Workers are entitled to their safety, which is why OSHA and similar things exist. Blue collar situations are very similar to this, and I'm sure no one would defend a woodshop that had bandaids instead of hand guards and eye protection. When a job has risks the company is responsible for proper mitigation and control.

I wouldn't say not obliged, entitled to a position. They advertised for a position, you convinced them you're a fit for the position. They've chosen you out of a pool of candidates that suites the job. They offer you a employment contract detailing the role, and responsibilities. You accept said contract and term's or write counter proposal. After accepting the position you shut up and do your job you where hired to do.

Maybe you should re-read the article and you'd realize it was NOT a job they signed up to do. If only people read the articles instead of leaping to defend face-less huge corporations.

Whats so hard to grasp? Some people seem to be jumping to conclusion on this. You're hired for a position that is detailed out in your EMPLOYMENT contract. If you get to your job and find out you have to kill kittens instead of the job description YOU'RE choosing to carry out the task. No one is forcing you to do it. On moral grounds and ethical ground I would resign instantly and contact the authority of the kind of material stored on the server.

Not going to repeat myself about whether it's a choice. There's better comments in this thread.

>and contact the authorize of the kind of material stored on the server.

Uh, I don't think you understand how this works. I'm sure if you tell the FBI that Microsoft works to remove child pornography from OneDrive and report the offenders they're going to say "Okay...?".

You're hired for a position to perform administration of OneDrive accounts. You're not hired to remove `Child pornography` from one drive or look at that shit. Its night and day that it's completely out of scope of the job description. The next step is simple you talk with your manager that the content viewed is out of scope of the scope of works in the contract (border line criminal material) that you refuse to view the content during the course of your work.

You seriously need to read the article, you are completely and embarrassingly misinformed about what the role is that this article is talking about.

Because no company has ever been less than truthful when describing a role and it's responsibilities.

I don't know how they could be `forcing` people to do it. Last time I checked you have your own agency and can decide to stay or leave on moral grounds. I would imagine that interviewee's will be acceptance of your role change if they understand you required part of your job to view questionable material.

I don't know if this is true or not but... I've heard that they limit the amount of time that you are allowed to serve on the "child services" team for some police departments. The idea is that, no matter how well adjusted you are, this messes with your head, and causes you to lose your cool. Anyone in a position to validate this?

I wonder about people that take these jobs & keep them until burn-out.

It's a little like I don't do darkweb stuff because I know I likely won't cope with it. And I don't clean skyscraper windows because I know I don't do well with heights.

So it's a case of "Well what the f did you expect?".

None of that excuses MS not providing support certainly but realistically these people signed up for something that is pretty much traumatic by definition.

Now if MS pitched the job as rainbows & sunshine that's a different story...then they should get sued to hell...

> None of that excuses MS not providing support...

I am not sure what the point of your entire comment is. You can't compare fear of heights to watching child porn, murder, rape, and other horrific crimes all day. Almost 99.9 percent of the population is going to develop psychological issues. MS should have provided support knowing what this role entails, they didn't. So here is the suit. [1]

[1] https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/

And when some bits of MS provided support (take extra time off) other bits of MS were disapproving when the men used that support.

> Supervisors authorized him and others to leave work early when they broke down or became overwhelmed by the trauma associated with viewing the depictions. Leaving early on occasions of breaking down was part of the ‘Wellness Plan.’ However, Mr. Blauert was criticized in employment reviews for following his wellness plan.”

Leaving work "early" isn't a viable wellness plan.

And becomes a complete joke if you are then made to feel guilty about it.

>You can't compare fear of heights to watching child porn, murder, rape, and other horrific crimes all day

I wasn't. My point was that this can't exactly have been a surprise. It's a little like me (being afraid of heights) signing up for skyscraper cleaning and then somehow being surprised when I don't cope.

This job is going to involve review of horrible scaring stuff...it says so on the tin.

>MS should have provided support knowing what this role entails, they didn't. So here is the suit.

Oh yeah definitely. I realise that & said so...and you even quoted me saying so...???

Working on a comment from my perspective, having known a number of folks on a team that handled these sort of matters, so not going to respond to each point.

>"these people signed up for something that is pretty much traumatic by definition." They had no choice in joining the team, reread the article

There's probably some subreddits and image boards where Microsoft could recruit willing employees to look at this kind of content. Though I don't think I'd want them as my coworkers.

>Members of Microsoft’s Online Safety Team had “God-like” status, former employees Henry Soto and Greg Blauert allege in a lawsuit filed on Dec. 30. They “could literally view any customer’s communications at any time.”

I wonder if these "God like" powers were ever abused. This isn't the first time Microsoft has snooped into their users accounts.

Considering there are actual (legal) communities around real-life "gore" I think the "had to view child abuse content" part is the less interesting one, although it makes for a better headline.

The import part is this:

> Microsoft did not warn the workers about the dangers of this line of work and the potential for “debilitating injuries”

People seeking out this content and watching it on a regular basis know what they are getting themselves into (even if it's the kind of stuff that wouldn't even fly on sites like 4chan). Regular employees of a software company might not.

The moderators should have been screened, prepared and offered free counselling. If this had been the case, I would have argued that they shouldn't be able to claim damages because they knew what they were getting themselves into.

As far as "they could have switched jobs" goes -- maybe that would have helped, maybe not. If some of the former moderators are suffering from actual trauma, that can be caused by a single impression. Sticking to the job may actually have been an (unhealthy) coping mechanism. Regular psychological exams might have avoided that.

It's negligent. It's a horrifying job and not everyone has the mental strength (or is desensitised enough) to do it but they basically threw them in the cold water at the deep end and then just tried to CYA by saying "if you don't like it, you can do something else" -- but only when the damage had already been done.

Whenever you allow user generated content, there's a chance of people sharing content that violates the terms of service.

I think AI that can identify an activity or situation and flag it automatically is technology that exists to some extent.

For cases where the AI cannot determine what is happening with certainty, it might be able to "pre-filter" the image to make it less shocking.

"while both men applied for worker’s compensation while taking medical leaves due to their PTSD, their claims were denied"

Why is Microsoft being sued here and not the Washington state agency denying the claim?

What do other companies do with people who have to evaluate content like this?

Verge had a pretty good longform article on it: http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11387934/internet-moderato...

edit: Sorry, it's an article about how other companies do content moderation, but not a huge focus on how they accommodate the workers who do it.

Some outsource the problem:

https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/

Sad, but unsurprising.

http://gizmodo.com/5936572/the-worst-job-at-google-a-year-of...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/tech-confessional-the-googler...

It's a problem for multiple companies. Some seem to offer counselling. I think the YouTube approach of only offering yearlong contracts is probably a sensible one, though you'd hope there would be some sort of support programme for ex-employees also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/technology/19screen.html

"Flagged videos are then sent for manual review by YouTube-employed content moderators who, because of the nature of the work, are given only yearlong contracts and access to counseling services, according to Victoria Grand, a YouTube spokeswoman."

Also, I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion but, it's this kind of problem that puts forward the strongest case for increased online surveillance. I understand it's unfair that everyone will be punished for the actions of a few, but I'd rather be under surveillance than have more damage to the personal lives of these content moderators. Maybe we just aren't yet mature enough as a species for the fully open web we used to have.

What? How do you suppose this surveillance will be conducted?

It sounds to me like you are proposing that we solve the problem of individual companies having to hire some people to look at bad things by having the government hire a whole bunch of people to look at bad things.

>"It sounds to me like you are proposing that we solve the problem of individual companies having to hire some people to look at bad things by having the government hire a whole bunch of people to look at bad things."

No, you've misunderstood.

I'm suggesting that in order to cut down on the depraved content being produced, you have to go after the producers. Increased online surveillance makes it easier for law enforcement to track down the producers (and consumers) of this content, as well as providing stronger evidence for their conviction.

In other words, rather than dealing with the problem on the surface, which is what the content moderators working for online companies are having to do, go after the problems at the source. Cut down on the levels of dodgy content being produced.

Do you understand what I mean now?

Your argument rests on the assumption of a sufficiently large overlap in the set of illegal and set of disturbing things they viewed.

While the best headline grabbing portion of such content moderation (child abuse) do fall into that intersection, it's a faulty assumption to construct your already-dubious reasoning that better surveillance will improve the live of the content moderators.

>"Your argument rests on the assumption of a sufficiently large overlap in the set of illegal and set of disturbing things they viewed."

There's no need for overlap. You see video footage of rape, child abuse, animal abuse, beheadings, etc... that's enough to take someone to trial. One video is enough.

>"While the best headline grabbing portion of such content moderation (child abuse) do fall into that intersection, it's a faulty assumption to construct your already-dubious reasoning that better surveillance will improve the live of the content moderators."

It's not rocket science, it's quite simple. If you stop the ability of the producers of morally bankrupt content to produce the content, there will be less new content to remove. If you disagree, explain your logic.

I agree with your final statement, in that this is the sort of awful behavior that adds credence to calls for surveillance, or at least private censorship. I wouldn't say this fully justifies for that sort of control, but it certainly makes them sound legitimate. How did society deal with these actions before the internet?

I don't know what the solution to this will be. Probably a perpetual cat-and-mouse game of image processing algorithms trying to spot graphic/illegal content and black hats finding more and more novel and sophisticated ways to defeat those programs.

> How did society deal with these actions before the internet?

We executed criminals in public spectacles to be enjoyed by the whole family. Also, blood sports.

It's actually a marvel of modern society that for most people in the Western world exposure to the more gruesome parts of human nature is voluntary and confined to videos and pictures on the Internet.

Even if you could prevent all illegal sources of such material -- stop all violent crime, sexual abuse and murder -- how does that prevent legal ones? There are entire websites on the Internet filled with pictures from violent accidents or disturbing results of medical procedures that many might find emotionally scarring. Not to mention what we do to animals we use as food.

Also, ultimately what may or may not be traumatic to an individual can very greatly. And a lot of things that might be traumatic to many are necessary to display in some contexts (e.g. medical professions or studying historical events). In some cases witness accounts alone may be horrible enough to traumatise.

I don't like slippery slope arguments but I think this train of thought is flawed enough that there isn't even a slope, it's a straight drop all the way down from the onset.

>"There are entire websites on the Internet filled with pictures from violent accidents or disturbing results of medical procedures that many might find emotionally scarring."

The difference is in intent.

If I view a horrible car crash that was an accident, the images may be graphic and unsettling at first glance, but I can brush it off.

However, if I saw a video where bodies were mutilated to the same degree, but was caused by someone doing it for their own kicks, that's much more disturbing.

I think you're asking the right questions. I don't know how society dealt with these actions before the Internet, but I suspect the scale of the problem wasn't the same before the Internet. It probably wasn't so easy before to distribute morally-bankrupt content without catching the attention of law enforcement.

The long term solution has to revolve around education and re-examining societal values (the darker side of human behaviour has its roots in more socially accepted forms of human activity). The short to medium term solution is to target those producing and consuming the content, but this is fraught with its own difficulties. In any case, targetted surveillance and streamlining the related court cases is something we should probably be doing more of for now.

For the sake of argument, I'd like to talk about legal-but-disturbing images to make one narrow point without getting bogged down with all the other contributing factors...

re-examining societal values (the darker side of human behaviour has its roots in more socially accepted forms of human activity)

No matter what societal values are, the minor person-to-person variance will always produce a distribution curve of personal standards clumped around society's "normal".

Which means there will always be a small number of people willing to view and send around content that is two standard deviations more "graphic" than what is acceptable in society at large.

It doesn't matter what the absolute value of 2σ is tomorrow. It will be just as offputting as 2σ content is today.

As I replied elsewhere, the difference is in intent. Content created to shock may be made for reasonable reasons. It's not necessarily the images themselves that causes people to lose faith in humanity. For example, if I watched a film that had a depiction of a rape, I could see it as serving some function in the story. However, the same rape conducted with real intent would have a much different meaning.

The intent to kill/maim/damage is something that has been condemned for centuries. Exceptions are made for war by those who seek power, but the solders who come out of the other end as psychologically scarred pay the price for such follies.

As for people with fringe interests, it all comes back to the golden rule. Leaving aside the murky waters of 'taking offense', any actions that impact the physical wellbeing of another should be open to public scrutiny. If I rape someone you know, that's not an act that you have to tolerate under the umbrella of free expression.

I agree with your final statement, in that this is the sort of awful behavior that adds credence to calls for surveillance, or at least private censorship.

The mentally taxing nature of implementing private censorship is a reason to implement more private censorship?

I... um... don't quite follow.

>"The mentally taxing nature of implementing private censorship is a reason to implement more private censorship?

I... um... don't quite follow."

I suspect you're misunderstanding on purpose.

The answer is not more private censorship, the answer is empowering law enforcement to intervene in the lives of those that have caused the issues in the first place.

If you're not prepared to go after those that are involved in the degrading behaviour, what do you propose? Stick your head in the sand and hope it all goes away?

>Soto claims he was assigned to the team and didn’t have any choice in the matter.

Of course you did. You could've walked out. You simply chose a paycheck over your sanity.

It appears that part of the lawsuit is that Microsoft didn't adequately prepare them for the job. I highly doubt they realized what they were getting themselves into from the start. Furthermore, when it comes to employment lawsuits like this, "didn't have any choice in the matter" is the equivalent of "could have quit instead of doing this." Quitting your job to avoid something your company wants you to do is not a valid answer - the company should not be asking you to do whatever that thing is. Hence, the lawsuit.

So if your boss came to you and said "look at disturbing child porn content all day or lose your ability to provide for your family", you wouldn't have a problem with that or try to seek legal action?

The amount people around here try to defend companies and exploitative practices will never cease to amaze me.

"You made the choice" is ignoring the people who make the situation in which you make that choice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com