Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Hiring 3,000 To Monitor Videos After Murders, Violence Shown Live (usatoday.com)

Posted by msmash on from the going-forward dept.

Facebook will add 3,000 more people to its community team to review videos on the social network, says CEO Mark Zuckerberg, after several surfaced in recent weeks including a father livestreaming the killing of his daughter. From a report: In a statement published to Facebook on Wednesday, Zuckerberg says it is "heartbreaking" to see videos streamed or posted to the platform showing users "hurting themselves or others." He says 4,500 employees currently work on the community team reviewing reports on videos, and will add 3,000 over the next year. "If we're going to build a safe community, we need to respond quickly," said Zuckerberg. "We're working to make these videos easier to report so we can take the right action sooner -- whether that's responding quickly when someone needs help or taking a post down." Will Oremus, reporter at Slate said, "I asked Facebook whether the 3,000 new content-moderation jobs will be employees or contractors. The company declined to comment."

114 comments

  1. How about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a job and won't be able to post as much.

    1. Re:How about this? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      It seems one of the first things to do...is NOT just let anyone post live on FB (or the other platforms) as a default capability.

      Have people apply for doing live video...maybe make them send in some samples to be judged first...that way no one could do it on a whim.

      Another idea, if you get live stream privs, why not have noobs have 30 second or a min or two delay...? That way folks could maybe monitor them and cut them before they hit the air.

      Hell, even Richard Pryor on SNL years back was on like a 3-5 second delay. Why not the common person trying to post on FB?

      I'm just thinking ways to screen at the beginning to keep people from posting horrible things like this and trying to get "famous" on FB by killing someone live, etc.

      Screen before you give these privileges and you just might save a life....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:How about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe FB can use China's policy as a blueprint on how to implement an effective censorship policy.

      The problem is that the person is KILLING someone in the first place. And then there is the fact that relying on individual humans to decide what should or should not be censored is a fools errand. What some find offensive others find entertaining. Or maybe they can fall back on the ole "I don't know what pornography is but I can recognize it when I see it.".

    3. Re:How about this? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems one of the first things to do...is NOT just let anyone post live on FB (or the other platforms) as a default capability.

      Here is an even better solution: Grow and realize that bad stuff happens and it will happen whether or not it is posted live on FB. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it is not happening, and if you don't want to see it then CLOSE YOUR BROWSER TAB.

      None of the things mentioned are FB's "fault", and "more censorship" is NOT the answer.

    4. Re:How about this? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Once you've decided to kill someone, nothing Facebook does will stop you. But it sounds more like you're suggesting Facebook itself is what incites people to commit murder... I'll just let the ridiculousness of that assertion speak for itself. Not that the Trumpesque "vetting" you proposed would do much to stop a killer, whatever the motivation. They're already choosing to put up with being the target of a multi-state law enforcement manhunt. I'd like to see Facebook try raising that bar. Actual users would start moving to Tinychat, Youtube, Snapchat, Skype, Google Hangouts...

      Really this is just about Facebook's PR. Lately they feel like they have to project an air of social responsibility. Which is great, our corporations should serve the society that birthed them. But they are concerned about smells, not substance. Substance would be making those 3000 employees *real* employees with fair pay, benefits, and conditions - not hiding it behind a contractor to make their own numbers look better. What I think is that the contract is going to get cancelled before the end of the year, when the heat from the press is off.

      It's like when Apple decided to replace the pistol emoji with a water gun. They do inconsequential things like this and then get a round of applause for their "brave stance against gun violence".

    5. Re:How about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason FB even needs PR is to pander to the idiocy of their user base. As the FB user base grows the collective IQ of the user base decreases proportionally. Thanks to the internet the unwashed and barely educated masses now have the means to inflict their viral idiocy all across the world.

  2. Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"

      But I don't think cat beheadings were part of their plans. Even cat juggling was deemed controversial.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

      But I don't think cat beheadings were part of their plans.

      That can only be the work of the jihadi terrorist group MICE-IS

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by telchine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"

      But I don't think cat beheadings were part of their plans.

      Exactly. This sounds like an horrific job. They're being paid to watch the nastiest stuff on the Internet and judge if it's going to psychologically harm people.

      I knew someone who's job it was to watch terrorist beheading videos and then watch all the gruesome blood, and death bits so it could be cut out to show on the news in a manner that wouldn't traumatise viewers. It's only a matter of time before seeing that stuff is going to affect you.

    4. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and reporting crazy cat ladies

    5. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even cat juggling was deemed controversial.

      Cat juggling can be very beneficial. Picture somebody with a box full of kittens trying to give them away. He'll have a very tough time - Not many people want an extra kitten. BUT, if he starts juggling those kittens he vastly widens the audience of people willing to take those kittens from him. Much more effective. We could organize this approach into The Inhumane Society.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only a matter of time before seeing that stuff is going to affect you.

      Here in NM, that's enough to claim PTSD and pick up a medical marijuana card. Of course, if that's not your thing, you're just stuck with PTSD.

    7. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not my thing, but it probably would be after having a job like that.

    8. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by magarity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I knew someone who's job it was to watch terrorist beheading videos and then watch all the gruesome blood, and death bits so it could be cut out to show on the news in a manner that wouldn't traumatise viewers. It's only a matter of time before seeing that stuff is going to affect you.

      If viewers didn't get a sanitized version of events there would be more political willpower to do something about people whose agenda includes sawing off the heads of "infidels" with knives.

    9. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Does that work for bosses also?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    10. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Just drop a MEOAB on em

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    11. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Aren't the terrorists TRYING to shock people? So you're saying we should play into the terrorists's hands even more?

    12. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      good fucking god!
      I think I'd need more than a bowl of pot after doing that for a living!

      Seriously I hope that of the 3000 employees they are hiring, they plan on 300 of them being Psychs, I think that a single counselor *might* be able to handle 10 patients who all have to deal with shit like this.

      related, IDK that it's FBs fault that people are capable of being so horrible to each other or animals, but maybe this live streaming thing is too far in search of a buck?

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    13. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Today I found out that cat organs were a real thing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew someone who's job it was to watch terrorist beheading videos and then watch all the gruesome blood, and death bits so it could be cut out to show on the news in a manner that wouldn't traumatise viewers. It's only a matter of time before seeing that stuff is going to affect you.

      If viewers didn't get a sanitized version of events there would be more political willpower to do something about people whose agenda includes sawing off the heads of "infidels" with knives.

      OR, people would just be more desensitized to violence than they already are, and nothing much would change.

    15. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      That "political will" translates directly into more foreign wars and/or erosion of our free society at home. The terrorists have realized that option 1 isn't particularly effective against them, and option 2 is what they've wanted all along. Congratulations on letting yourself be terrorized.

    16. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 2

      No, you clearly don't understand and neither do the people who voted this Insightful.

      Showing it in a non-sanitized version is only giving them exactly what they want. You're validating their viewpoint that the people of the West are nothing but vicarious bastards who should cower in fear at what this regime is doing, or worst, demand action that usually doesn't even lead to the destruction of the original culprits and the harming of many an innocent person.

      That news channels would show any part of this kind of content is appalling. Its nothing but a sick tool to push a sicker agenda.
      Nobody should be exposed to that level of violence and anyone producing such content needs to be silently dismissed, as to not validate their ideas and provoke even more violence.

      There's more to it than a lack of political willpower. Nobody, short of the mentally sick, enjoy what's going on. It's just much more complex than a simple lack of willpower to do something.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    17. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do something about = giving in to their demands

    18. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right up until the moment they find out that they've signed up to get paid to find the next surprise "Two Kids One Hammer" video instead.

    19. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew someone who's job it was to watch terrorist beheading videos and then watch all the gruesome blood, and death bits so it could be cut out to show on the news in a manner that wouldn't traumatise viewers. It's only a matter of time before seeing that stuff is going to affect you.

      If viewers didn't get a sanitized version of events there would be more political willpower to do something about people whose agenda includes sawing off the heads of "infidels" with knives.

      Sorry. History says that the more horrors you see routinely, the more you get desensitized to horrors. Old ladies sitting and knitting by the guillotine and children using gibbets as swings.

      One reason why people in places like that commit atrocities of that nature is that they're so calloused by them that only the really shocking stuff even registers on them.

      A lot of suspense and horror writers have said that they find it more effective to hint at things than graphically portray them in detail.

      So if anything, a steady diet of people sawing other people's heads off with knives (and many of the "infidels" are their own people) isn't going to help. What we really need is to make a concentrated effort to drive home the point that sawing people's heads off is something that only a very twisted god would appreciate and is wholly unacceptable to everyone else. And part of that effort would be to drop the "Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" tactic. A lot of our enemies today were in that category yesterday. If they want the goodies we give our friends, they need to stop behaving like enemies and we very definitely should not forgive their own offences or turn a blind eye to them.

    20. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two sides here with the same agenda. They're both being manipulated by the lizard people.

      You have magarity who wants to kill some Moooooslims because his god demands it. He wants anything that will get people as angry and primed and ready to start blowing some heads off and get in on the beheading action. He wants gory, violent, terrifying beheading videos all day every day until we're committed to genocide in the Middle East.

      You have DAESH that wants to kill some infidels because their god demands it. They want anything that will get people as angry and primed and ready to start blowing some heads off and get in on the beheading action. They want gory, violent, terrifying drone murders all day every day until they're committed to genocide in the West.

      I'm afraid we're past the point of no return here. The lizard people have pulled this off expertly. I didn't even see it coming when I realized that Ivanka Trump was a lizard. I was absolutely certain that they wanted Hillary Clinton, another lizard, to bring this to a head. Maybe lizard people have their own politics, who knows.

      This is going to end in global thermonuclear war.

    21. Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I much prefer the sound of a mouse organ any day.

  3. What a waste by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being a censor is becoming the biggest segment of Facebook employment.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:What a waste by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Think of the new layer of SJW that have to look after who can censor.
      A communist government that wants no talk of past Party members, leadership or the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
      A theocracy, monarchy or kingdom that pays for ads wants no blasphemy or faith related cartoons.
      Germany wants no comment on the numbers of illegal migrants wondering around.
      Governments want users reported if they comment on political policy.
      New jobs for US graduates. All the topics they banned on campus can now be banned globally. The users get reported too.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:What a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there it is, a heap of bullshit RWNJ slogans all in one post.

    3. Re:What a waste by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this is just stupid. Facebook is a for-profit, commercial platform. It has decided it doesn't want these videos. Not wanting to show you murdering someone on live stream is not censorship. In fact it's protecting the victim's right to privacy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:What a waste by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      As opposed to LWNJ slogans like "racist!" "sexist!" "homophobe!" "islamophobe!" "fascist!" etc?

  4. Plot twist! by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will Oremus, reporter at Slate said, "I asked Facebook whether the 3,000 new content-moderation jobs will be employees or contractors. The company declined to comment."

    Ironically, they'll be hired from the same foreign worker pool that's being paid to post the videos in the first place.

    1. Re:Plot twist! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So if you play your cards right you could get paid twice for doing nothing? Where do I sign up?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Plot twist! by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      https://www.governmentjobs.com...

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    3. Re:Plot twist! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      On second thoughts, I might have to work with criemer.

      I'll give it a miss.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are hiring more people to wait for videos to be reported so we can respond faster. There cannot be that many video reported daily that 4,500 employees can't respond to. Can there?

    1. Re:So... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      The psychological damage will require them to hire 4500 new employees every few months.

      Ironically, part of those previous 4500 employees will be the ones posting violent videos in the future.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:So... by gnick · · Score: 1

      The psychological damage will require them to hire 4500 new employees every few months.

      This can be solved by careful psychological screening of applicants. Only hire the sociopaths.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:So... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Then who's going to work for governments?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  6. hnnn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    this is a step in the right direction, but I think the responsible thing to do -- and something facebook is actually in a position to pursue, unlike some companies -- is focus on machine learning etc to better identify such videos without causing unnecessary psychological damage to human reviewers.

    1. Re:hnnn by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      Or, if you have friends that post such horrific content, simply unfollow them. Same with pages you follow. Why do you need Facebook to do anything?

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  7. They use humans? That's so 2013 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Where's the violence-detection AI bots?

    Sounds like a great idea for a sca.....new AI company.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:They use humans? That's so 2013 by RhettLivingston · · Score: 3, Insightful

      3000 humans is not even remote to the ballpark of the required number to monitor FB's videos. It is in the ballpark of what is truly required to accelerate the training of the AI-based filters. This is 100% about doing what is necessary to reduce the problem in the only way it can be. To use humans to filter video, news, or any other media in today's volumes can never meet cost requirements.

    2. Re:They use humans? That's so 2013 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans will train the filters that flag videos to be bumped up the human review queue. I'd imagine they would also factor in other metadata related to the broadcast and real time user reported violations (Whatever the 'report this video stream' button is called on facebook)

      I'd imagine the idea is to get bad stuff in front of human eyes quickly for moderation so facebook can say they're doing something about the issue.

    3. Re:They use humans? That's so 2013 by PPH · · Score: 1

      It turns out that robots just enjoy watching human pain and suffering too much.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:They use humans? That's so 2013 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook responds to reported videos and news. You upload a video and with in seconds it is view-able. It will still be too late. Live started the killing, beating, or other starts. Some one will still need to hit report for facebook to say lets see what the compliant is. By that time the live stream will most likely be over.

  8. This is the wrong reaction. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is a deep mistake to react to a single event by responding with a massive response unless that event really is genuinely damaging. This is akin to how one idiot tried to light his shoes on fire on an airplane and now we all need to take off our shoes when going through security. This is an overreaction at its most basic. Unfortunately, given PR and politicians grandstanding about how awful this is, this may be Facebook's best option.

    1. Re:This is the wrong reaction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, there have been several incidents like this on FB just within the past year (like the torturing of that mentally challenged person in Chicago, a think a few gang rapes were live streamed on it as well). It's obviously gaining traction among sick, fucked up people looking for attention.

    2. Re:This is the wrong reaction. by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      Overreaction? Probably but I personally don't know how many posts are reported in a day they do need to be able to check reported posts in a timely fashion but they don't need to screen all posts.

      It's not a job I would want i'm sure 90%+ is just stuff people are reporting to be jerks but occasionally they are going to be shown things no person should ever have to see and that's another 3,000 people that will probably need some counseling eventually.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re:This is the wrong reaction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "React"

      The mistake is in assuming reacting can solve anything. Society, (and FB is now helping shape that), can help develop a culture where that stuff becomes minimal & anti-rewarding. It's just going to be like this: "Well we caught some people doing something that's horrible. Couldn't prevent it, but we have their picture- is this a helpful service somehow?".

          EVERYONE ALREADY WATCHED IT TOO! Prevention is the key, with re-build social attitudes instead of allowing/encouraging creeps.

      "Prevent"

    4. Re:This is the wrong reaction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up.

    5. Re:This is the wrong reaction. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If they didn't actively police it, Facebook would quickly turn into a cam site.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:This is the wrong reaction. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      occasionally they are going to be shown things no person should ever have to see and that's another 3,000 people that will probably need some counseling eventually.

      What about when the new AI robots that eventually monitor and curate FB need counseling themselves? Wow -- it's a new job opportunity! ... for a while.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    7. Re:This is the wrong reaction. by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >If they didn't actively police it, Facebook would quickly turn into a cam site.

      They're missing out on something, then. It'd be easy enough for them to 'wall off' a section of the site for adult services - charging to confirm identify, legal age, legality of the production in the location of origin, etc - and then allowing their confirmed over-18 members to access it while taking an ongoing cut of the cam fees.

      They'd still have to monitor for people trying to run their cam site outside the prescribed areas, but they could be making bank on the cam girls who play ball.

    8. Re:This is the wrong reaction. by azaana · · Score: 1

      Except there has been more than one event, and we are litraly talking about people live streaming murder this is behavior we don't want to encourage.

  9. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. That's why we need tons more H-1B. America has no next generation to speak of.

  10. step by step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    step by step
    the internet dies
    per public demand

    1. Re:step by step by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Facebook can censor whatever they want, they could in fact go offline entirely, and the Internet would be just fine. If Facebook isn't giving people what they want, they can use an alternative service.

      What the internet won't survive is corporatist guys like Ajit Pai regulating it. He'd rather have you buy "Facebook Internet" or whatever, where you can't access any site that's not on Comcast's approved list. Not without coughing up an extra couple hundred, anyway.

  11. Win Win by trevc · · Score: 3, Funny

    I could do this while at work 'cos all I do is surf the web anyway. Double income would rock.

    1. Re:Win Win by wired_parrot · · Score: 2

      Sure, if you can handle the debilitating PTSD brought on by watching traumatic videos. My good health is worth more than any money they can throw at me.

    2. Re:Win Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if you can handle the debilitating PTSD brought on by watching traumatic videos. My good health is worth more than any money they can throw at me.

      I grew up on 4chan and other... darker... places on the internet. Somehow I think I'll be just fine.
      The question is how much does it pay, and will it be a steady gig, or will I be looking for work again in a year or two?

  12. Paging Erich Honecker by Oxygen99 · · Score: 0

    Isn't this what the Stasi did?

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    1. Re:Paging Erich Honecker by Kierthos · · Score: 2

      Facebook isn't a government agency.

      They can do whatever they want with regards to hosting or not hosting videos. Hell, they could decide tomorrow that they don't want the hassle any more, and stop supporting video posting and live feeds.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Paging Erich Honecker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can do whatever they want with regards to hosting or not hosting videos. Hell, they could decide tomorrow that they don't want the hassle any more, and stop supporting video posting and live feeds.

      Too bad they don't decide to do the world a favor, go out of business.

    3. Re:Paging Erich Honecker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      decide tomorrow that they don't want the hassle any more, and stop supporting video posting and live feeds.

      That's what they should do. They control enough of the world as it is.

    4. Re:Paging Erich Honecker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corps and Gov't will not let them go out of business. It is a great way to spy on people.
      Just sit back people will give us all the info we want about them.

    5. Re:Paging Erich Honecker by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, the Stasi did not stop people live streaming murders on their social network.

      Did you get hit in the head or something?

    6. Re:Paging Erich Honecker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody needs to learn what an analogy is

      P.S. If you're too dense to understand an implication as well, that would be you.

  13. What About False-Positives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what happens when a "live murder" is banned which later turns out to have been some concerned citizen recording police brutality? Or will we never even hear about such a story because the video was banned before anyone saw it?

    1. Re:What About False-Positives? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      And how exactly are they going to accomplish that? Their blocking afaik is all based on after the fact video they have to check.

      Someone saw it being livestreamed that's how it got reported.

      As far as the police brutality thing goes the united airlines video was pulled off the front page of reddit at least twice due to a policy prohibiting police brutality videos. IIRC they finally just posted a video of someone walking down the aisle so the story could stay on the front page.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:What About False-Positives? by zlives · · Score: 1

      if facebook is the only thing keeping society at bay from anarchy... i guess my nuclear shelter will definitely pay off.

  14. This is why safe harbor exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're overthinking things; occasional crap happens. You won't stop it from showing up.

  15. employees or contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The company declined to comment"

    even if they did commit one way or the other, they could still change their mind easy enough.

    OF_FUCKING_COURSE this will be contracted out.. the question should have been.. "will you be hiring americans to fill these positions?"

  16. and when some get's off for live murder as fakeboo by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and when some get's off for live murder as Facebook messed up the chain of evidence

  17. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you saying that you could watch a video of somebody butt-fucking a toddler to death and just laugh it off? I'm glad I'm not you. I would be traumatized.

  18. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all a matter of context. Watching a gruesome grainy video on a small screen is traumatizing.

    Show it on a big screen with expensive popcorn and drinks, and you'll attract folks in droves.

  19. Pretty crude... by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Seems like you could look for keywords in comments and hyperlinking of new videos to flag bad ones.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  20. professional snitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you thought robots were taking your jobs?

  21. Nuke it from orbit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its the only way to be sure.

  22. Zuck the cuck by WCMI92 · · Score: 0

    his videos should rank #1.

    I have no facebook account. I've also never consumed a Starbucks product.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  23. Build a safe community by PPH · · Score: 1

    Won't someone please think of the childr^H^H^H^H^H^Hshareholders?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. PTSD by neghvar1 · · Score: 1

    Hopefully their are good medical benefits. Some of Youtube's human censors have quit and been diagnosed with PTSD due to all the disgusting, traumatic, and disturbing videos some people try to upload to youtube.

    https://www.theguardian.com/te...

    1. Re:PTSD by neghvar1 · · Score: 1

      https://gizmodo.com/5936572/th...

  25. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by wired_parrot · · Score: 2

    Watching a violent video online can lead to PTSD, inducing nightmares, anxiety and panic attacks. One study study found that people who watched traumatic events on video were more traumatized than those who watched it in real life.

    So, yes, watching a traumatic video is definitely unsafe. And I sincerely help that Facebook provides psychological help to their workers who will be screening for these disturbing videos.

  26. Wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reality must be censored from everybody so they only feel good and safe all the time.... unless somebody wants to sell them something. Only the majority and the power may choose what parts of reality are prohibited. Stuff happens. deal with it-- and by that I mean you wimps grow a spine.

  27. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by magarity · · Score: 1

    Yes. That's why we need tons more H-1B. America has no next generation to speak of.

    Where do you think all the new hires are coming from?

  28. Just ditch it by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Live streaming for individuals is probably a net detriment for society.

    There are way too many tools that allow you to completely fuck up in life and broadcast it to the world.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Just ditch it by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, what? You want to ban or restrict these tools so as not to offend people? Well, if Facebook ditches them, I hope an alternative pops up, in a fashion that can't be taken down by anybody.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Just ditch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like YouTube Live, Periscope, and at least half a dozen other live streaming platforms? This wasn't a new idea with FB introduced it. They stole the idea like just about everything else they are adding to FB recently.

    3. Re:Just ditch it by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's still too easy to have stuff taken down. We need something robust to prevent that.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Just ditch it by geekmux · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm sorry, what? You want to ban or restrict these tools so as not to offend people?

      No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.

      Speaking of offensive,, let's look at social media addicts. Nothing but a bunch of fucking narcissists addicted to whoring out every single aspect of their lives online in hopes of getting pointless attention. Talk about a net detriment to society. It's pathetic. Fuck social media live streaming.

    5. Re:Just ditch it by sycodon · · Score: 1

      A-Fucking-Men!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Just ditch it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.

      Maybe you should focus on your own life, rather than trying to micro-manage the lives of other people. If they want to spend time on FB, that is their choice, not yours.

    7. Re:Just ditch it by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's just a phase. Something we have to get though by guidance, not obstruction. We don't want or need society telling us what we can put up on the internet. That's just another form of dictatorship. You don't have to read or watch.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Just ditch it by geekmux · · Score: 1

      No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.

      Maybe you should focus on your own life, rather than trying to micro-manage the lives of other people. If they want to spend time on FB, that is their choice, not yours.

      Maybe we should focus on the reason we're having this discussion, since the issue is not merely limited to narcissism, but also the innocent victims of it. Social media live streaming has streamed homicides of children, which brings for the question; would narcissists have murdered if the live spotlight wasn't available? Further analysis needs to be done, but the impact certainly begs the question.

      Regardless of the criminal impact, narcissism is not a good human trait. And social media has addicted millions to the spotlight. Give it another decade, and humans won't even know how to function without it. Due to the addiction, extended internet outages will likely cause suicides or perhaps people lashing out in other harmful ways, affecting others. It's sad at best, and destructive at worst. Parallels to drug addiction? Yeah, you could say that.

    9. Re:Just ditch it by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It's just a phase. Something we have to get though by guidance, not obstruction. We don't want or need society telling us what we can put up on the internet. That's just another form of dictatorship. You don't have to read or watch.

      Let's not overlook or dismiss the very reason we're having this discussion. This "phase" has cost the lives of innocent victims, including children, which me not reading or watching hasn't changed that fact.

      And laws already DO tell you what you can and cannot put up on the internet; laws defined by a civilized society that exist for valid reasons. The First Amendment does not magically waive our right to abide by those laws. Start spewing terrorist rhetoric or threaten the life of a standing president online, and you'll quickly see how your Right is not a free-for-all.

      And when narcissistic behavior is redefined as "normal" in a society addicted to the spotlight, there is no "guidance" being provided. That's like looking for a cure for addiction by working with addicts; no one sees a problem.

    10. Re:Just ditch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would narcissists have murdered if the live spotlight wasn't available?

      Yes. Murder is one of the less cruel things people do to children.

      the impact certainly begs the question.

      No, it raises the question, at least for somebody looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses and determined to blame something other than human beings themselves for their violent and abusive nature.

    11. Re:Just ditch it by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment does not magically waive our right to abide by those laws.

      Maybe you should read it sometime and tell me where the exceptions are. The power of the word, both positive and negative, comes from the listener, not the speaker.

      Bad behavior is a problem because most of the time society rewards it with great wealth and power.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  29. Believe It When I See It by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

    Twice I've reported a non-live video posted to Facebook with homicide in it. Not an artistic re-enactment or imaging. Actual people being killed. Within an hour I got a response saying it didn't violate Community Standards. So clearly, hiring a bunch of people is not enough. They have to know how to enforce policy. Higher-ups also need to draft a better policy.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    1. Re:Believe It When I See It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that homicide by the hands of the police? If so, why do you think it should be taken down?

    2. Re:Believe It When I See It by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      Why do you reported it? If someone posts something you don't like, especially often, just unfollow that person or page. Easy.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  30. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can watch a video of a father murdering his daughter and not be affected by that, you are one sick fuck.

  31. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

    Good thing your anatomically equipped to prevent viewing such material. You have these two flaps of skin capable of obscuring your vision in [wait for it] a blink of eye.

  32. Worst job on the internet... by slew · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"

    As always, be careful what you wish for as this posting reminds us...

  33. Not going to work. by gabereiser · · Score: 1

    Live + People = CRAZY! It's psychology. People en-masse are bat-shit-fucking-nuts. If an individual who is crazy and seeks to hurt himself or others, and they have the ability to broadcast to the world, live, in their pockets, they will do it. This is on facebook for introducing live video capabilities with no way to police who can/can't broadcast. This is why Television standards and stuff were invented. But you millennials think you know everything and that everyone is peachy. Welcome to reality. It's a brutal place.

  34. oh I can't wait by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Til their "people" censor & take down a video they deem not appropriate. They will holler & complain of (insert your favorite anti-something phrase) and it will be bad PR for Fakebook. Best thing would be to SHUT DOWN live video, and put a self censored minimum 30 minute delay. To the person posting the video, they are "live" but it buffers through the Fakebook monitors, and goes through once they give it the good housekeeping seal of approval. A lot of live TV & Radio shows have several seconds delay, why not this?

  35. Working as intended? by n329619 · · Score: 1

    Psychopaths post live on FB, making it easier to find them and remove from sane society.

    In the long run, psychopaths are greatly reduced.

    I suppose FB could use some employees to give us a warning to the live video content ahead, so common people don't get PTSD.

  36. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your links do is prove his point: we're a nation of spineless twats.

  37. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..or maybe you're just a sackless pussy. It's a vid. Don't like it? Turn it off. Better yet, exercise some of that brainmatter and don't play questionable videos.

  38. Re:Since when is viewing a video 'unsafe'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an adult, I realize there are people out there who do fucked up things. Do I want to see it? No. Am I traumatized the moment I click play and realize it's content I don't want to see? No. I just shut it off and move on with my life. There's no need for the hand-wringing, virtue-signalling sanctimony.

    Of course, the current generations have been raised such that they can't handle much of anything without reverting to the thumb sucking stage. I don't want to pay for your safe spaces, whether in cash or in liberty, and I sure as hell don't want censoring being done on my behalf by failbook and other ideologically charged institutions.