Facebook moderator: ‘Every day was a nightmare’ | Hacker News Reader

Facebook moderator: ‘Every day was a nightmare’

bbc.co.uk

42 pointsalexrustic21 comments

I have been following this story for years, even before Google bought Youtube. It is hard to imagine a solution.

This is such a hard problem to sort out. On one hand, Facebook and other social media, are predicated on the ability for the public to share content. On the other hand, there are people sharing traumatizing content which cannot be filtered using machines only. Some of this content is so horrific that it must not be described.

What can Facebook or Youtube do besides hire people to filter the content? Should they curate people, allowing only approved people to share content? Who, then, is allowed to be approved? Who does the approving? How are they approved?

It is opening a Pandora's box for FB and YT to even talk about this. So, they make empty statements and move on. Anything beyond tackling this head on will be seen as criminal.

Why in the world would anybody (still) load this stuff up onto facebook of all places? They must know by now it's going to be deleted before anybody can see it. I would have expected a Facebook moderator's job to be more like a TSA screener: you'd spend all day looking for something that never appears.

Is It though? I would imagine that there is some marginal utility if it's done in such volumes.

I get the occasional friend request from profiles with links to porn sites. Even if I report it, the fact that I saw it implies others might have seen it already and more will see it before Facebook removes it.

Because using big platforms works, even if its caught and removed fast. the christchurch shooting was livestreamed on facebook. The goal was already accomplished by the time it was taken down. Setting up new accounts on any platform is also a cost/benefit scenario. Generally, a very low bar is used and catching spammers/TOS-violations is probability driven. anything with low visibility that violates TOS (and escapes the brutal filters nowadays) isn't caught until someone somewhere sees it and makes the first report.

Example: https://gizmodo.com/youtube-won-t-ban-a-guy-who-crushes-anim...

    Some Facebook moderators are asked to sign a disclaimer before starting work, accepting that the content seen in their jobs could lead to poor mental health and PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). An example of the contract, read out in the committee said: “I understand that exposure to this content may give me post traumatic stress disorder. "I will engage in a mandatory wellness coaching session but I understand that those are not conditions and may not be sufficient to prevent my contracting PTSD.”

Does this kind of waiver exist for physical harm? Something like "as a factory worker, I will follow safety protocols but I understand that they may not be sufficient to prevent loss of life or limb.”

It’s usually implied, think: policemen, firemen, soldiers, window cleaners on buildings, steel workers, etc.

Some jobs are inherently risky to your physical and/or mental health.

Facebook should be more honest. Having the employee sign a non-disclosure agreement is disgraceful. These people are literally watching abuse and violence to make Facebook more money.

Update: I have just deleted my account. I decided that the fact that some people have to be miserable for me to use Facebook just isn't worth it.

Why would anyone choose this job? What am I missing? If you’re absolutely desperate, what about working at a fast food restaurant?

I suspect a lot of these job listings are disguised as generic office work, and you don't know what you're in for until it's too late (NDA, job started, etc...)

Off the top of my head:

- This can be done from home.

- It can be done by individuals with mobility issues, or other conditions preventing them from leaving home

- Ability to have a flexible schedule (not sure how FB handles this, but I can see the work being done ad-hoc)

The article says it cannot be done from home. FB requires these moderators to work in the office.

It's probably done to prevent them from sharing what they see with other members of their household, just like the NDA they have to sign.

In this case it seems to specifically be the contractor, whereas Facebook allows it. I agree it's not a good reason for this article, but explains why some might choose this type of work over working the grill at maccas

> Isabella claims she was not allowed to work from home, unlike her counterparts who were employed directly by Facebook who did the same job.

Money? Just like any other job. It pays better than fast food.

If nobody wanted to do the job, the salary would increase until people wanted to do the job.

Correct. These are high paying jobs.

You can't manufacture desire. Do you think people want to collect garbage or climb radio towers? Raising compensation until you can convince desperate people that the risk to their mental health is worth that amount of money is as close as you get.

I had the same thought.

I used to work at a company with notoriously tough expectations. The sales team was worked so hard that if an agent lasted a year they were viewed in the community as generally able to sell anything to anyone. Ketchup popsicle to a lady in a white dress, type stuff.

Contracting to Facebook is 1 degree from a real FAANG job, and I'm sure the money is good, requirements are minimal and expectations are high. There will be a certain prestige to the job, even if its terrible.

Because the pay is high to offset the downsides.

Not sure about FB, but Youtube reportedly pays moderators an annual salary of $37k [1] and Glassdoor reports the average content moderator salary is $45k. The US Health and Human Services put those salaries between 3 and 4 times that of the poverty guideline for a single person.

This poverty guideline describes the bottom 12% of the US population. The Youtube salary describes the middle 33%.

In the referenced Youtube article, the man "worries that he will not be able to find another job that pays as well as this one does".

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/16/21021005/

the pay is high?

Sorry but 37k does not pay enough to force me to pollute my mind every day.

You bring up an interesting point.

In the U.S. it’s been discussed how the recent stimulus has led to the improvements in the unemployment rate slowing. People aren’t interested in going back to low-paying, degrading jobs — like fast food. It’s forcing businesses to increase their hourly wage to find willing workers.

It makes you wonder if Facebook will face the same fate soon with its moderation jobs.

Will there be a point where the cost to hire and support these people becomes unsustainable? Will they master moderation by machine learning before this occurs? Seems Facebook may be faking it while it’s making it.

Sounds like a good job for psychos

Reply on news.ycombinator.com