Hacker News Reader

Comment by ronilan | Hacker News Reader

If this was up to me, each and every employee of YouTube (and Google, for as long as YouTube is not set free) would be trained as a content moderator and would be required to do so for a couple of weeks (or as sufficient to complete the task) every year.

Edit: yes. Every single one.

View on HN

Most of their top engineers would quit and go to work for another company that values their time. Quality of service would fall because top people have left. They would have a lot more difficult time to find any engineers to work for them.

“Most of their top engineers would quit and go to work for another company that values their time.”

Maybe. But I doubt it.

First because people don’t quit that fast and second because I think something else might happen that is worth the risk of loosing a few “top” quitters.

I think top people will realize there is an opportunity here, and after seeing how effective it can be for a team to work toward a common goal, will request other such tasks be added to the list.

Eventually, people at that company can choose where to use their “20% service job” time.

But, then again, don’t worry, it’s all theoretical anyway, it’s obviously not up to me.

Engineers switch companies already on average every few years. All companies have trouble keeping top engineers as it is with all the competition going on. Look at the perks and benefits being offered to them. If those perks can sway engineers then imagine how being forced to do something someone is not good at, might cause them PTSD, might be waste of time for progression in their life, be in general just a lot more unpleasant activity can affect the choice among companies they work for. All of those extra activities besides being able to focus on work will affect productivity and achieving goals. There is enough work and goals to achieve, I am not going to choose a week every quarter to do something that is not going to help me towards career goals I have. I do not think I am superior or others are beneath me but it is logical for me to choose a company that aligns best with what I want to achieve and if I have the option to do so, why not?

“I am not going to choose a week every quarter to do something that is not going to help me towards career goals I have.”

In which case, if it was up to me, and it is not, obviously, I’d open a short discussion about goals, and if we couldn’t find a common ground, would write down “culture fit” and wish you better happiness somewhere else.

If there are enough engineers who do not want to be forced to do chores unrelated to what they excel at, what they don't see benefitting their lives and what has dangers to their mental health it is likely you won't have many to build your video platform left.

Why should engineer choose this culture compared to other cultures where he can just build things and provide value at what they are best at?

Knowing other engineers most would avoid such activities where they can't use their skills valuably like a plague.

Also you would lose goal/results oriented people. The ones who are best at reaching those goals are the ones who can not stand doing anything that does not align woth those goals.

“you won't have many to build your video platform left.”

I’m not building a video platform. It’s already there. I’m just, totally hypocritically, fixing the company that operates it.

"I’m not building a video platform. It’s already there. I’m just, totally hypocritically, fixing the company that operates it."

Are you saying there is no more work left to do?

What about improving algorithms that can moderate those PTSD causing media themselves so it would not be a problem in the first place.

Are you claiming that YouTube does not have a need for engineers at all because the product is already available for public?

... falling Quality of Service would make it take longer to upload YT videos, resulting in fewer videos uploaded ...

That would be the market at work, saying that Youtube/Facebook isn't wanted.

But we do already have working market where people are willing to accept moderation jobs for YouTube.

I wouldn't work for a company that doesn't value my time as much as I do. Working on a platform I wished didn't exist would be very insulting. Your statement sounds like a typical out of touch high level manager that didn't think through an idea.

Being forced to do a low-level job for a somewhat extended period that is probably not directly to your day-to-day is a bit much. However, depending on the situation/company etc., having employees work support or otherwise put themselves in the shoes of people using the products they're involved with making every now and then shouldn't be something they view as beneath them.

Not beneath me, but I do value using my time as optimally as possible. Maybe a week of customer support once in life or few years would be great, but why should I choose a company that forces me to spend my time unwisely? It is not about being beneath me. I just want to solve problems programmatically, not be customer support. You know engineers can not be forced either, they can leave any time due to market demand so good luck to anyone trying to make their employees do something like that.

The time is being spent educating higher-tier engineering, business, sales, marketing, and other staff, of the full implications of their work.

If it's not possible to do a thing, safely, effectively, and socially beneficially at scale, maybe it shouldn't be done at all.

Markets externalise all kinds of costs, with long-term and latent risks and power inequalities prime among them.

Are you saying we should not do video platforms at all?

Also moderation is not the only bad job in the industry or life in general. Why should we specifically rotate on moderation? Why not cleaning after old people, plumbing anything else you can think of that might be gross or mentally dangerous to do?

Moderation is only a minor factor of all the implications of this job.

I'm saying the question should be asked.

I mean, we have people literally having themselves shot dead for YouTube clicks and ads:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/us/fatal-youtube-stunt/index....

(Something I'd commented on at the time. YouTube are absolutely culpable.)

If the job has to be done -- and I'd put healthcare, garbage collection, policework, and military service among those -- you take all reasonable efforts to minimise risks, especially unnecessary ones, and support those who've become disabled through them. That's the principle argument for veterans healthcare, and an exceptionally sound one.

There are of course many instances of work under hazadous conditions not properly compensated. A few off the top of my head:

- Workers in lead-related facilities: mining, smelting, fuel production, paint, and printing. (I'm excluding resulting environmental contamination, that's also an issue, but not workers.)

- "Radium Girls" watchdial painters. Instructed to lick their brushes with their lips/tongues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

- Coal miners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker%27s_pneumoconiosis

- Asbestos workers -- concrete, shipbuilding, roofing, insulation, and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma

- Fire hazards, generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

Spinning up a platform for cat videos and pratfalls with no larger social conscience is not excusable.

(Yes, there's good content on YouTube, and I rely on it myself. I'm aware of the costs. And I'm aware that many proposed alternatives, including peer-to-peer systems, would or do face similar issues.)

Of course you should minimize the risks, but what we are debating about is whether employees should be forced to do that job on rotation. In reality this is something that should be regulated legally so the company would be legally required to provide appropriate amount of assistance/support to the moderators.

I'm leaning that way myself.

I’m honestly not sure of the value of spending time in first line customer support. I would note though that, at least in companies in enterprise sales, engineers are very commonly in the ultimate escalation path, expected to help in sales situations as needed, and do other things related to retaking customers and gaining new ones. Senior engineers are also often expected to be a face of the company in a variety of ways.

Also having just a week spent in customer support might create biases because your customers had this time these specific issues. Analyzing those issues and understanding what is actually important requires a broader view and analyzing all the tickets etc

I agree with this sentiment and would like to see more this sort of this not just for moderators but for every "low skill" job. Especially the C-level employees and shareholders - no one should be asking anyone to do something without either A) doing it themselves so they know what they're asking or B) treating the workers as experts whose opinions and requests should be taken seriously.

The fact that you and parent are getting downvoted just shows how out of touch with reality some developers have become. They really are exhibiting the same cluelessness they often attribute to managers.

There’s more. I think people are afraid. First from having to do something “unpleasant” and on a deeper level from loosing their own status of “importance”. It’s a pity indeed.

It's a great idea that should be practised in most industries.

Why the employees rather than the shareholders and executives who profit the most from it? The returns in their portfolios literally come at the expense of lifelong psychological wounding (which the corp is directly admitting in this contract).

You are not wrong.

Why not both, or all?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com