Perhaps. I would argue that there is some difference between seeing someone fall off a cliff and watching someone being tortured to death.
Edit: and saying things like "well clearly these people are already traumatized if they're seeking this out, it's not good for them, we shouldn't give these jobs to them" seems laughably paternalistic when the alternative is to traumatize more people by making them look at it instead.
That they seek it out doesn't mean they're not messed up.
Maybe it helps dealing with that trauma. Maybe it makes the trauma worse. Maybe there was no trauma to begin with, and the person was seeking out that content simply due to morbid curiosity, but then it evolved into something else. Maybe there was no trauma to begin with and no trauma appeared after the exposure. Who knows.
But just because there are communities on reddit with people seeking that kind of material and not going on crazy violent sprees doesn't mean that it doesn't negatively affect them. It could be the case, but we should probably look into that first before jumping to "obvious solution" claims.
tl;dr: we gotta do more research and weigh pros and cons before simply declaring "we have an obvious solution, let's just hire all those gore content enthusiasts to moderate violent content, because they already do it on their own and don't seem to be going crazy in obvious ways due to it".
People come to their choices with all manner of existing problems and conflicts, and they don't always do things in their own best interest.
Human are so diverse.
Is is really hard to believe that there are people that are not negatively affected by this ?
That would do wonders for the Facebook brand.
Look at how much trouble they got in when it was revealed they were using Onavo (even before acquisition).
My basis for thinking this is I've seen videos like that before and clicked away quickly. It's disturbing, but I think I'm okay.
Obviously not everyone, but they are there.