Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Is Not Protecting Content Moderators From Mental Trauma, Lawsuit Claims (reuters.com)

A former Facebook contract employee has filed a lawsuit, alleging that content moderators who face mental trauma after reviewing distressing images on the platform are not being properly protected by the social networking company. Reuters reports: Facebook moderators under contract are "bombarded" with "thousands of videos, images and livestreamed broadcasts of child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality, beheadings, suicide and murder," the lawsuit said. "Facebook is ignoring its duty to provide a safe workplace and instead creating a revolving door of contractors who are irreparably traumatized by what they witnessed on the job," Korey Nelson, a lawyer for former Facebook contract employee Selena Scola, said in a statement on Monday. Facebook in the past has said all of its content reviewers have access to mental health resources, including trained professionals onsite for both individual and group counseling, and they receive full health care benefits. More than 7,500 content reviewers work for Facebook, including full-time employees and contractors. Facebook's director of corporate communications, Bertie Thomson, said in response to the allegations: "We take the support of our content moderators incredibly seriously, [...] ensuring that every person reviewing Facebook content is offered psychological support and wellness resources."

210 comments

  1. The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A country of weaklings. If you don't think you can handle that shit (and I'm sure it is horrible) don't take the fucking job. Butch the fuck up.

    1. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You say that but I bet after a few weeks of flashing horrible images in front of you and making your brain "approve" and "reject" that content you'd be a gibbering snotty mess, you pseudo-macho moron. I guarantee it, wanna find out?

      Of course you don't, bitch. Now lie down and let Brett Kavanaugh put his dick in your eye. Butch the fuck up.

    2. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should def be hiring Vikings.

    3. Re:The new America. by Calydor · · Score: 1

      So if a construction job says they have a team of medics on the scene in case you get injured, and then you fall from a three story scaffolding and break your arm only to be told to suck it up or GTFO, that's okay in your world because you should have been able to handle breaking your arm?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:The new America. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A country of weaklings. If you don't think you can handle that shit (and I'm sure it is horrible) don't take the fucking job. Butch the fuck up.

      And what if you do think you can handle it but end up with PTSD? Yes, it can cause PTSD. Also, how does your perspective align with soldiers? Are you going to tell the one's that saw their friends blown to pieces that they should "Butch the fuck up" when they are having a flashback?

      I for one would love to draft all the ACs like you into the being content moderators until you squeal at the very sight of a webpage loading.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:The new America. by cvdwl · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is more like working construction and suing because your muscles are sore at the end of the day. If you aren't physically, mentally, or emotionally capable of handling a job, don't take it! I'm sensitive and north of 50, neither content moderation nor construction are in my future career path. I can live with that.

      If the scaffolding was defective, you have a case; if you fall off well-constructed scaffolding with all safety protocols in place, you HAVE screwed up. Yeah, workman's comp should cover it, but if it happens multiple times, you should look for another job. You're clearly not suited for construction work.

      --
      ... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
    6. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I bet that facebook moderators only rarely see a truly grisly image. (Those posting child porn or mob killings tend to do it in less public forums than facebook.). 99% is acceptable pictures - tons and tons of really boring stuff from the lives of people.

      And occationally, there is an exposed tit that somehow isn't acceptable to Americans, and therefore has to be deleted. Even if it is posted in a Russian-language art pictures group local to Vladivostok.

      Also, the occational troll who toss some plain porn into discussions. Not exactly horrible to reject either.

      But still - if they want less "horrible pictures", use their power to ban people. Don't just delete the picture, delete the user & blacklist him. E.g. lock someone out of facebook a month for porn, or for life for an IS beheading. As for fake accounts - no need to have them. Account validated by official ID or it gets closed.

    7. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell is the content moderation work being done in the USA???

    8. Re:The new America. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      When asked for a comment Mark Zuckerberg was heard saying: "You want mental health? Go moderate for MySpace. Here we move fast and break things and that includes your sanity bitch."

    9. Re: The new America. by Millennium · · Score: 1

      This is why you can't get a date.

    10. Re: The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a billion users rarely is daily. Itâ(TM)s crazy but at that scale....

    11. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been on 4chan so long that no image really haunts me. It might make me go "ugh" and I may never forget it but it does not bother me after I'm done looking at it. Facebook should hire more /b/tards.

    12. Re:The new America. by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, Funny

      Account validated by official ID or it gets closed.

      Why do you think minorities shouldn't be allowed on facebook? I mean, isn't that the reason we don't require ID's for voting?

      You are suggesting that minorities should only have a voice at the ballot box but otherwise that their voices should not be heard.

      Shame on you!

    13. Re:The new America. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      No - this would be more like the medic refusing to help you because they have already seen to many traumatic pictures browsing facebook while on the way to the accident.

    14. Re:The new America. by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      A country of weaklings. If you don't think you can handle that shit (and I'm sure it is horrible) don't take the fucking job. Butch the fuck up.

      This is nothing but attention-whoring and looking for a fat lawsuit payday from deep-pocketed FB.

      I'm laughing at the fact that FB is reaping some of what it's sown in promoting Leftist-snowflake thinking and attitudes. "You're either an Oppressor or one of the Oppressed!"

      I knew this shit was coming. Leftists, given sufficient time, always end up eating their own. Just look at how the MSM has changed how they treat the Clintons now, the kid-gloves have (at least somewhat) come off.

      "Hey FB workers! FB should be giving you free safe spaces, comfort puppies, medical marijuana and a smoking room, and licensed psychiatric therapists or they're a bunch of Nazi fascists!" LOL!

      I will admit to a bit of schadenfreude here, heh!

      Well, OK, maybe more than just a bit. :P

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    15. Re: The new America. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      If they hired the people as Facebook FTEs this never would have happened. They scoffed their sense of loyalty by using them without including them.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    16. Re: The new America. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      There is a popular phrase in the construction industry: "You are fired right before you hit the ground."

      The message, though often said over laughs, is one of social pressure.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    17. Re:The new America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Are you going to tell the one's that saw their friends blown to pieces that they should "Butch the fuck up" when they are having a flashback?
      Actually: yes!

      They should have not been there in the first place. After WWII there hardly was any engagement that was justified by anything ... american soldiers simply should stay at home. The world would be a better place then.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:The new America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      I guess America is the only country in the world where you don't need an ID for voting.
      Pretty retarded that you are proud about that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:The new America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Again I have to ask: what has being left or right to do with that?
      Why is "lefty" an insult in the USA?
      Or more precisely: why do you insult people who have a "left attitude" in politics?
      Or even more precisely, why is everything you don't agree with: "left" ??? Is that the new newspeak, as in "sinister" meaning "left" and you are to dumb to use the proper term and replace "sinister" with "lefty" to make a point?

      No offense, just wondering why people always use the term lefty ... you are against nuclear power, you are a lefty, you are against abortion, you are a lefty, you are against ... insert word here, you are a lefty.

      Sounds pretty retarded to me ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    20. Re:The new America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, HALF of America believes we shouldn't need an ID for voting, and a large minority of the other half doesn't want to appear "racist" so they go along with them... Buying alcohol, getting a job, driving, going to school, paying taxes, flying in an airplane, getting a bank account - all require an ID and that isn't racist at all. But somehow requiring an ID to prove who are when you vote is "racist".

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re:The new America. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      Are you going to tell the one's that saw their friends blown to pieces that they should "Butch the fuck up" when they are having a flashback?
      Actually: yes!

      They should have not been there in the first place. After WWII there hardly was any engagement that was justified by anything ... american soldiers simply should stay at home. The world would be a better place then.

      Yeah, the military doesn't work that way. You go where you're told.

    22. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet that facebook moderators only rarely see a truly grisly image. (Those posting child porn or mob killings tend to do it in less public forums than facebook.). 99% is acceptable pictures - tons and tons of really boring stuff from the lives of people.

      Sorry, but that's bullshit. Narcissism is a social disease now. And narcissists don't look for a tiny soapbox in the corner to be narcissists. They look for the biggest fucking platform they can find.

      And Facebook, for better or worse, is the biggest fucking soapbox in the universe.

    23. Re: The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha right wing person who thinks people shouldn't be allowed to say racsim. Sorry right wing PC police I'll stock to your approved terms!

    24. Re: The new America. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      While I would certainly never mod you or the idiot(s) below "insightful" this thread provided a lot of insightful into what scum you really are.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    25. Re: The new America. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I'm traumatized because I keep seeing posts from a moron who doesn't know the difference between "to" and "too", and he keeps trying to sound intelligent but keeps blasting his stupidity to the world instead!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    26. Re: The new America. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      As usual you are spewing some phenomenally stupid shit. I'm pretty sure most people are not of the opinion "just watch the child pedo and tough the fuck up." I do however understand why you don't see why most people find the task objectionable.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    27. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC you sound like you're under thirty so maybe you're the target demographic for this trauma. The rest of /. won't feel sorry for the poor sods that work for the evil empire.

    28. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit.
      You need ID for everything else but not for voting?!
      We have it here in Canada but that naive PM is trying to put us back where the US is on that.

    29. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A country of weaklings. If you don't think you can handle that shit (and I'm sure it is horrible) don't take the fucking job. Butch the fuck up.

      Don't worry about it - weak Americans and strong Americans burn equally well in nuclear fire!

    30. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now lie down and let Brett Kavanaugh put his dick in your eye. Butch the fuck up.

      Look mate, if you want the Supreme Court to fully represent the American people it's going to have to feature at least one rapist. You can't have an entire panel of evangelical paedophiles.

    31. Re: The new America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with you saying racism all you want; I just do not believe that it is racist when asking for proof of ID when voting, or driving, or purchasing alcohol or firearms, or getting a job, or renting an apartment, or traveling.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    32. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rarely do you need ID to buy alcohol once over age 30 or have any grey hair. You usually pay taxes (which taxes?) with a check, which doesn't require an ID per se, but has your info on the check--though they don't really care who pays your taxes. There is typically a stub to show whose taxes are being paid. Lots of people don't drive, go to school, fly or have bank accounts.

    33. Re:The new America. by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      Valid point. These people are seeing what a lot of police officers see, which drives a large number of them to being drunks are depressed. Daily doses of violence, child molestation, or what ever type of filth that is out there would drive me to depression.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    34. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol I'm dying !!!!!

    35. Re:The new America. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I was being sarcastic

    36. Re:The new America. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So if a construction job says they have a team of medics on the scene in case you get injured, and then you fall from a three story scaffolding and break your arm only to be told to suck it up or GTFO, that's okay in your world because you should have been able to handle breaking your arm?

      I think there is a BIG difference between physically breaking bones or worse on your body....vs being offended by 'naughty pictures'.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    37. Re: The new America. by houghi · · Score: 1

      Occasional is bad enough. I have seen a childporn image once. Not something I EVER want to see again. If I wod see such images occasionally, Iwould need help. I am a very stable person.
      If you are not seroously affected by it, you have issues andd need even more help.
      And I am not talking about a girl that is kust under the age of consent.

      Luckily I only saw one image.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    38. Re:The new America. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Rarely do you need ID to buy alcohol once over age 30 or have any grey hair. You usually pay taxes (which taxes?) with a check, which doesn't require an ID per se, but has your info on the check--though they don't really care who pays your taxes. There is typically a stub to show whose taxes are being paid. Lots of people don't drive, go to school, fly or have bank accounts.

      They require ID to go into the court buildings, many if not most federal buildings, etc.

      There are a TON of things requiring an ID....try boarding an airplane without one and see how that goes for you.

      And yet, you can't produce one to vote?

      IN most states that require an ID, you can GET a FREE ID....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    39. Re:The new America. by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      The reason it's racist is because the voter ID laws are made to target poor people (often minorities) without access to a valid ID and for whom it would be a large burden to get one. Voter fraud is practically non-existent and the laws only get passed in places where those types of people would vote against the establishment. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

      Many people have jobs, go to school, and generally live as normal citizens without a driver's license (which is the primary form of ID)

    40. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is "lefty" an insult in the USA?

      Because it has connotations that are often at odds with the facts, or which conflict with popular assumptions or biases. So it becomes a way to say something that is true, but imply something that is false. It's a way to lie without being called out.

      If you're a coward or just generally would like to become known as a more dishonest person, I highly recommend you investigate the power of ambiguous insults.

    41. Re:The new America. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Again I have to ask: what has being left or right to do with that?
      Why is "lefty" an insult in the USA?
      Or more precisely: why do you insult people who have a "left attitude" in politics?

      Because Leftists are basically Marxists with various flavors of authoritarianism and tyranny (e.g. socialism, communism). Marxism in it's various forms has killed more of it's own citizens than disease, starvation, or wars between foreign nations.

      All forms of Marxism are authoritarian by their very nature, as it forces individuals to act in the best interests of the collective and the State, not necessarily in their own best interests. That is evil.

      Marxism in it's various forms is actually and literally worse than cancer.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    42. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As usual the social regressive "racist" opinion misrepresents the argument to make patently false claims.
      No one has ever said they thought it was racist to ask for an ID. What is discriminatory about the blatant voter suppression represented in the voter ID laws is the criteria for acquiring the ID, the timing, and the selective implementation. But you are correct it isn't directly racist, it is a poll tax to hinder "the poors" which happens to turn out to disproportionately affect certain minorities.
      Now if you want actually racist ID policy it is the closing of DMVs in poor neighborhoods which just happen to be predominately lived in by "darkies".

    43. Re:The new America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Pay taxes with a check... No bank account. Really? Western Union or Post Office money order? Need ID. I need an ID to buy a firearm, why not an ID to vote? Or are some rights more important than others?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    44. Re:The new America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Many people have jobs, go to school, and generally live as normal citizens without a driver's license (which is the primary form of ID)

      Those other forms of ID are proof of identity; if it's good enough for a job (an I-9 form is required to ensure you are eligible to work in the US) and register for school, it should be good enough for voting, as far as I'm concerned. Would that be acceptable to you?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    45. Re:The new America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So, how about a job? You need to fill out an I-9 form to be employed. Which requires pretty strong proof of who you are. Or is that racist as well? Is it racist to require ID to purchase a firearm?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    46. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear horror stories of military people having to kill children, then have issues facing their own children when they get home, plus horrible reoccurring nightmares. The only people "butch" enough for this job are those who find this their fetish.

    47. Re:The new America. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      You're seriously comparing someone sitting in their comfy office moderating videos and pictures to someone who is 5 thousand miles from home and family, half blinded and deafened by war while witnessing first hand their own friends literally getting blown apart while their own life is in peril? Because that what it essentially reads like.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    48. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor people should make more money. Problem solved.

    49. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there is a BIG difference between physically breaking bones or worse on your body....vs being offended by 'naughty pictures'.

      Correct. The bones typically heal, and you can often forget about the trauma in the years afterwards. Nasty pictures can haunt you the rest of your life if they are nasty enough.

    50. Re:The new America. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you make other forms of ID acceptable (or pro-actively provide IDs to everyone when they register to vote) then you could require that. It's still a solution in search of a problem, but I guess the whole security theater is popular with some.

    51. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think minorities shouldn't be allowed on facebook?

      Same reason as everyone else, they're just easier to manipulate because they're less likely to have an ID. (Don't you also usually go for low-hanging fruit? I sure do.)

      If we're going to get everyone off of Facebook, it has to start with someone. Who would you recommend?

      I mean, besides old people. (Yes yes, we all want old people to stop using that site, but nobody knows how to stop old people, other than maybe legalizing marijuana. So we'll try that. But it might not work, everyone, so don't be surprised if we need a Plan B.)

    52. Re:The new America. by strikethree · · Score: 2

      I am not really trying to argue with you here. I just want to clarify a point:

      Also, how does your perspective align with soldiers? Are you going to tell the one's that saw their friends blown to pieces that they should "Butch the fuck up" when they are having a flashback?

      Long story short, I walked into the movie Saving Private Ryan without any clue whatsoever it about its content. The theater was full and there was only one seat available, front row center.

      I sat down, saw some old guy at Arlington, and thought to myself, "Fuck. Why did I come to see this movie? This is going to be another "feel good" boring story."

      So the old guy fades out and the next 20 minutes or so were just fucking intense. Totally unexpected to me. I sat through the ENTIRE movie without feeling the need to go smoke a cigarette. I was that riveted.

      What is the point of all this?

      I have had mortar and rocket rounds land around me. People have died in my vicinity. I have had bullets whiz by my head. I am speaking of being in an actual war zone with actual death being present.

      While Saving Private Ryan was intense to view, it was nowhere near actually being there. It was a GREAT depiction, but there was no immediate danger for anyone in the audience and that makes a HUGE difference. Actually having a mortar round punch holes in your door where you are trying sleep is not even in the same book as watching a video about it. They are not similar experiences.

      I am old enough to have seen pretty much everything, and I have. For some people, watching a video of an actual live dismemberment of a naked and helpless man could be traumatizing. I do not look down at someone who is traumatized by such things. Such things are not within normal human experience and are extreme.

      You can not know beforehand if you would be traumatized by watching something or actually experiencing something. Even watching something will not let you know if you can handle the actuality of it.

      Long story short, since it is possible for a person to be traumatized, there should be some attention given to that possibility. This is especially true since there is no way to tell beforehand whether or not a particular person could be traumatized merely by viewing an image.

      All of that being said, it took me 9 months to recover enough to not be SEVERELY startled by sudden loud noises. I still get startled, but it is within expected norms nowadays. There is not a single image on this planet that could traumatize me at this point; although being submersed in such images for extended periods may require some R&R to keep my state of mind from thinking such things are normal.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    53. Re:The new America. by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      The firearms one is tricky. The Federal Gov requires Federally licensed dealers to do a background check. To do that they need ID. But private sales in most states do not require a background check and do not require ID. Just putting that out there.

    54. Re:The new America. by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      and people on the right are not authoritarian at all (or should I ignore the Religious fundamentalist moral police)

    55. Re:The new America. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Correct. The bones typically heal, and you can often forget about the trauma in the years afterwards. Nasty pictures can haunt you the rest of your life if they are nasty enough.

      Really?

      If that kinda thing bothers you, then you should not be in the line of work that requires that type of viewing.

      But I hardly think that looking at images will warp your mind, curve your spine and lost the war for the allies....

      --with apologies to GC

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    56. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you get upset when people say the right is all Nazis....hmm

    57. Re:The new America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So if my State requires proof of ID to purchase a firearm, and all firearm sales must go through a registered dealer (no private sales - this is California), should that be considered a violation of my rights?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    58. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the people posting rape, gore and death also get PTSD or is that only something that happens to the mod team?

    59. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he is? And because science supports that? Different people have different degrees of what can trigger a disorder like PTSD. Some people can kill and see people die around them, and come out with no long-term negative mental health effects (other than the burden of having experienced those horrors - which is no small burden to carry, I know, but it won't be a long-term mental disorder for everyone). Others can suffer from long term PTSD from very short and relatively inconsequential events when compared to combat related PTSD.

      I have dealt with PTSD for about 20 years after a pretty horrific series of events, and it's well managed now, but it can still come up and interfere with my life in a negative way. I don't begrudge people who suffer from PTSD that may have had a less severe experience than I did. It's not a measure of how much willpower you are or how much of a badass you are. It's something with how our brains are wired.

      I am posting this as AC because my primary account is "doxxable" and frankly my mental health is nobody's business.

    60. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck does " Butch the fuck up." even mean?

    61. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is retarded. The adults in America generally ignore the far right retards. They can't do much of anything except vote against their own best interests, but sadly they do enough damage to enable that. If it weren't for the inherent authoritarian corruption of the right in America, the damage would be limited; but the Republican party has gerrymandered the shit out of every state to where a handful of right wingers can override thousands of non-retarded people.

      There is hope though, as the majority of those under 30 today are being pushed HARD to the left. It's like they say, weak men bring misfortune, so strong men rise to fix it. That is the future left of America rising to fix the fuckups of the weak right wingers who are just a decade away from mostly dying off.

    62. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See? This retard proves the point very easily. Of course anyone with a brain can look up how incorrect he is, but right wingers only process feelings; logic, reason, and math are "liberal conspiracies by Satan and Marks!".

      Thank you for proving to everyone how retarded you are Strat!

    63. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that is the argument. The racism thing is an observation of the result perhaps, but not the argument why the government should avoid requiring papers to vote.

      All these other examples, driving, paying bills, etc., are not constitutional rights. Abridging the ability to exercise a right is a bigger deal than interfering with the ability to drive - which is not a right.

      Same argument for restoring voting rights to felons.

       

    64. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A country of weaklings. If you don't think you can handle that shit (and I'm sure it is horrible) don't take the fucking job. Butch the fuck up.

      And what if you do think you can handle it but end up with PTSD? Yes, it can cause PTSD. Also, how does your perspective align with soldiers? Are you going to tell the one's that saw their friends blown to pieces that they should "Butch the fuck up" when they are having a flashback?

      I for one would love to draft all the ACs like you into the being content moderators until you squeal at the very sight of a webpage loading.

      You are seriously, deeply delusional and sheltered if you think there aren't plenty of people that have seen the worst of the worst on the internet over and over again and walked away without PTSD. Granted those people probably aren't willing to work for what FB pays. There are those of us that actively seek it out. I can understand that many people don't want to see or can't handle that kind of content but they shouldn't have signed up for a job that FOCUSES on that content. It's like taking a job in an ER and being squeamish about blood.

      If FB wants to pay me more than I make now to classify horrible content I'm happy to oblige. The light weight shit they list in the article is nothing compared to what's really out there. The people that have the worst of the worst don't post it to FB.

      PS: Getting PTSD from images and videos is pretty pathetic. They can't actually hurt you.

    65. Re:The new America. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Do the people posting rape, gore and death also get PTSD or is that only something that happens to the mod team?

      Usually not. They have other disorders which preempt the PTSD from setting in. Sociopathy, for starters. Psychopathy, in same cases.

      There are a non-zero number of psychopaths who haven't been caught, or are what you could call "high functioning". They refrain from torturing people with jumper cables not because it's a bad thing but because they've currently got something else to do with their time.

    66. Re: The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have already spent a lot of time on a website that was basically that, the old 4chan /b/ as of like 2008. Moderation existed but tons of people posted all sorts of illegal stuff and everyone would see and report it before it was removed.

    67. Re:The new America. by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

      I'm 34 and got carded today. Happens frequently in fact. Besides, did you drive to the store? Then you have government issued ID or broke the law.

      It really is sad we can't have a national voter ID. Even Mexico has them. I just heard an ad on the radio not long ago telling Mexican citizens it is their civic duty to get their ID and vote.

      The vast majority of functioning adults drive, have bank accounts and go to work, school or both.

      Any more reasons we can't have identification to vote? I mean, it's only the mechanism we have in place to decide who gets to run the country. Not important right?

    68. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me having a car and getting to work today is vastly more important then voting. One keeps me alive, the other just keeps electing the same useless people that rob us and tell us they are here to help.

      Just look at our last presidential choices. Does it really matter which terrible person got in? At least with Trump we are actually pretending to be doing something about Russian messing with our elections. Had Hillary won, that would never of happened and we likely wouldn't even know it did happen.

    69. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You believe this? You can't. This has to be bait.

    70. Re: The new America. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      As usual you are spewing some phenomenally stupid shit.

      Which you seem unable to refute with facts.

      I'm pretty sure most people are not of the opinion "just watch the child pedo and tough the fuck up."

      No, they're of the opinion; "Why did you take the job then? Find another if you don't like it. It's not like you're unskilled or you wouldn't have been hired there in the first place. Stop being a snowflake."

      I do however understand

      This statement is not born out by your comments.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    71. Re:The new America. by sarren1901 · · Score: 2

      There are approximately 20 million white people living in poverty in the US. There are approximately 10.5 million blacks living in poverty. About 12.6 latino in poverty.

      I don't know how I can find out what percentage of those in poverty by race actually vote, but the idea that it is racist to have a voter ID card as it unfairly burdens those in poverty which supposedly affects minorities more. That is only true by percentage of race against the entire US population.

      The US Census declared that in 2014 14.8% of the general population lived in poverty:[48]
      10.1% of all white non-Hispanic persons
      12.0% of all Asian persons
      23.6% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)
      26.2% of all African American persons
      28.3% of Native Americans / Alaska Natives

      Total 318,558,162 100%
      One race 308,805,215 96.9%
          White 197,362,672 62.0%
          Hispanic or Latino 55,199,107 17.3%
          Black or African American 40,241,818 12.6%
          American Indian and Alaska Native 2,597,817 0.8%
          Asian 16,614,625 5.2%
          Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 560,021 0.2%
          Other races 15,133,856 4.8%
      Two or more races 9,752,947 3.1%
          White and Black or African American 2,525,509 0.8%
          White and American Indian and Alaska Native 1,884,407 0.6%
          White and Asian 1,956,740 0.6%
          Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native 318,302 0.1%

      Yes, by percentages, minorities are more affected by poverty. Guess what? They still have ID. Many poor people have alcohol issues. They have id to buy it, trust and believe. If you have a taxpaying job, you have ID. If you rent an apartment from someone other then your friend, you had a credit check done and they want ID.

      If you have a bank account, you'll need ID. College students go drinking. They get both real AND fake IDs. That's going the distance really.

      If voting is important to an individual, then they will take the time to fill out a voter registration form and get a government issued ID. It doesn't even have to be a driver's license. In California the DMV issues both driver's license and non-driver ID cards. You can get one for your child if you want.

      Politics is the only real answer to why we can't have a national ID. Having ID is not a burden. Poor people have ID. They aren't helpless, they are just poor.

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

    72. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. The bones typically heal, and you can often forget about the trauma in the years afterwards. Nasty pictures can haunt you the rest of your life if they are nasty enough.

      Really?

      If that kinda thing bothers you, then you should not be in the line of work that requires that type of viewing.

      But I hardly think that looking at images will warp your mind, curve your spine and lost the war for the allies....

      --with apologies to GC

      Hey pal, just because you apparently lack empathy doesn't mean everyone else is like you. Maybe you just have just have a very tame imagination. We're not talking about things like goatcx and tubgirl. If you can watch videos of people being tortured and murdered without being moved in any way, then you're one fucked up dude.

    73. Re:The new America. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      and people on the right are not authoritarian at all (or should I ignore the Religious fundamentalist moral police)

      Yep, you killed the hell out of that strawman.

      I have just as much of a problem with the religious-fundamentalist moral police as I do with Leftist cultural/PC moral police.

      I'm a small-"L" libertarian. I'm forcing my ideology on you *right NOW* because I'm leaving you the hell alone. Horrors!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    74. Re:The new America. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Look for the "Radiolab" podcast and specifically, the episode "Post no evil". It's an interesting view into the world of Facebook moderators.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    75. Re:The new America. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I guess that you are just ignorant. Other countries don't require ID for voting.

      Pretty retarded to not know that.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    76. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people said the same thing after WWII...

    77. Re: The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fainting couch is over that way...

    78. Re: The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jobs program for Corporate Progressives.

    79. Re:The new America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Because Leftists are basically Marxists with various flavors of authoritarianism and tyranny
      Wow! How do you come to that retarded idea?
      (e.g. socialism, communism). Marxism in it's various forms has killed more of it's own citizens than disease, starvation, or wars between foreign nations.
      That is nonsense. People died due to revolutions. Would not have mattered at all if the "winners" of those revolutions would have been "right" ... they had kille just the other part of the population, but most likely that other part had greatly overlapped with the people who died.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    80. Re:The new America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course you need an ID for voting.
      How else would you prove that you are the one you are claiming to be?
      And how would you prevent double voting etc. ?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    81. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound very young.

    82. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep your bigotry to yourself. People who lack empathy are insulted, persecuted, and ostracized even in modern times and it's not acceptable.

    83. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why dosn't facebook give them a job ??
      If you have a category of people with these disorders that cannot be cured, why on earth dont we employ and monitor them somehow?

    84. Re:The new America. by Ksevio · · Score: 0
      So I have a driver's license and a passport, but I don't need them for the vast majority of things you list:
      • Buy Alcohol? Nope - only a few strict places with the police watching do that
      • Tax paying job? Nope - they wanted my SSN, but weren't interested in a photo ID
      • Rent an apartment? Nope - they did a background check on my name/SSN but didn't need an ID
      • Bank account? Yes I believe I did need an ID for that. Many people don't have bank accounts
      • College student going drinking? Fake IDs aren't valid identification and old out-of-state IDs aren't either (for voting)

      Many of the people without IDs are elderly and may not need an ID for anything else, but it's hard for them to travel a long distance and wait in line for hours to get an ID only to be told they need some other form of identification. If it were that easy then it wouldn't be an issue.

    85. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Behold, the Dunning-Kruger effect in action! Strong opinions without any real knowledge.

    86. Re:The new America. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Of course you need an ID for voting.

      Not where I have lived and voted (two different countries).

      Voter impersonation is generally quite rare. Studies looking for it have failed to find any more than trivial amounts of it.

      Double voting: They record who votes. Duh!

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    87. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Koreans who are currently not under the jackboot of the Beloved Leader would probably disagree.

    88. Re:The new America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hell do you mean by "Haven't been caught"? It's not illegal to be a psychopath. That's like saying "There are homosexuals who haven't been caught".

    89. Re:The new America. by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      I think it is if there is a cost to it. The ID, the background check, etc.

  2. Hm, how about r/l janitors then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you sign up for moderating filth, you're surprised you're not getting a filth-free safe space to do that job in? Did they promise such when you signed up for the job, or what?

    I'm waiting for a class action lawsuit of janitors objecting having to clean dirty toilets and not having a workspace "safe from germs" in which to do it.

    1. Re:Hm, how about r/l janitors then? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I agree with that one, but that janitor lawsuit would be justified if they aren't given the tools (like brushes and rubber gloves) to do their job safely.

      So if this is a frivolous lawsuit depends on what facebook actually delivered when they said they would give the needed support for that job. (and maybe misleading job descriptions)

      --
      bickerdyke
  3. Looks like time for the B Team by Mal-2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It looks like it's time to call in a relief crew and let them get a rest. Call in the B Team -- or the /b/ team, rather.

    You get all the best talent when they do it for free.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:Looks like time for the B Team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, they enjoy it.

    2. Re:Looks like time for the B Team by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The '/b/ team' as you put it, would delete all the non-violent, non-disturbing, normal content, and promote the sickest shit imagineable 'for the lulz' -- and then add their own, meme'd from everyone elses'.

    3. Re:Looks like time for the B Team by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Maybe a decade ago. /b/ is nothing but tranny porn, furry porn and spam now.

    4. Re:Looks like time for the B Team by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Then Facebook would be inundated with tranny porn, furry porn and spam.

    5. Re:Looks like time for the B Team by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      That would be fun to see

  4. You can't unsee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've read that for the police officers who work combating child porn, there's stuff you can't unsee.

    People who have to deal with that to keep the rest of us from seeing it should have reasonable resources and therapy available to deal with it. I'm not talking carte blanche, but something serious if they need it. Just because you can find someone to work a job without that support doesn't mean it's okay to mess people up for doing their job. You can find people to work a sawmill even if you don't give them health insurance if they cut off your hand, but it's still not okay.

    1. Re:You can't unsee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it does not affect them they are probably not suitable for the job in the first place and should be investigated.

    2. Re:You can't unsee. by mysidia · · Score: 2

      I've read that for the police officers who work combating child porn, there's stuff you can't unsee.

      I see this as Facebook should give moderators a "This content is illegal/shocking/excessively grotesque checkbox" and partner with law enforcement
      to try and track down the source of the image to hold them responsible.

      Also, if someone as an end user uploads a violating picture or knowingly sends a direct link to a violating picture (For example: if the picture appears in the thumbnail): then that person should be named to be held responsible for any harm caused to any FB employee by that.

    3. Re:You can't unsee. by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But sometimes that's the point - like people posting videos of the victims of Mexican drug cartels who are doing it because the government is trying to hide that it happens and ignore the problem. Notifying law enforcement isn't going to do anything

    4. Re:You can't unsee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course there is no reason why "shocking/excessively grotesque" images/content should trigger "partnering" with law enforcement and hopefully law enforcement would quickly begin to ignore calls from FB if they were contacted for such images/content.

    5. Re:You can't unsee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Investigated for what? "You're not being traumatized by this, we're going to look into you".

  5. Infinite regression by Shazatoga · · Score: 1

    So they now need content monitors for the content monitors? Until the content monitors' content monitors sue for their own content monitors. I foresee a problem here. At least until we train our nascent AI overlords by feeding them an endless stream of bestiality and beheading videos, then all our problems will be solved!

    1. Re:Infinite regression by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      do you want skynet, this is how you get skynet.

  6. Re:Mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/09/01

    Thank you for reminding me of penny arcade.
    I always fucking hated that site, and this one is a good reminder of how bad it was.

  7. Maybe put on their big boy pants by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0

    I guess those photos of a 30 year old professional model's nipples must be really traumatizing. That's why the model is suspended for 30 days because of the horror inflicted on the poor moderators.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Maybe put on their big boy pants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vinegar joe beats his old tiny cock to child porn anyway, nothing can phase him anymore.

    2. Re: Maybe put on their big boy pants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one loves kiddie porn as much as disreputable Democrat party political operative David Brock and his fifty cent army of self-hating virgins.

  8. Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh.... Facebook is still a thing. Nice.

  9. *Imagines the job qualifications and interview* by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given that it is impossible to do what this disgruntled worker demands (which is to pre-filter the offensive content, that THEY are hired to filter!!), what I see happening instead is the addition of new job requirements...

    Applicant for this position must have demonstrated a complete lack of empathy or emotional reaction to offensive media, and must be able to endure hours of review in the detection, flagging, and removal process of such media. Items that the applicant must have dulled reactions to include but are not limited to, deep fake pornography, child abuse, including sexual exploitation of children, animal abuse, including sexual exploitation of animals, and offensive political rhetoric.

    Applicants are expected to work overtime as instructed by supervisors to meet platform quality standards at corporate mandated deadlines, including weekdays and holidays, as required.

    So, Mr Smith. I assume that you have reviewed and agreed to our initial screening waiver while we administer the 4CHAN-Reddit test battery to determine your candidacy for this position-- are you ready to proceed?

    Excellent! This equipment will measure your emotional responses to the images and other content in this test battery, which have been selected at random from some of the most infamous place on the internet, and which represent a sampling of the worst kind of content humans are able to produce. The test will last 30 minutes, after which, we will review your data and inform you if you have made our candidate list.

    (Begin horror scene from A Clockwork Orange)

    -----

    You know, that kind of thing.

    1. Re:*Imagines the job qualifications and interview* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given that it is impossible to do what this disgruntled worker demands (which is to pre-filter the offensive content, that THEY are hired to filter!!), ...

      Where are you getting this from? It sounds like the fundamental complaint is that Facebook is not providing adequate resources to reasonable deal with the psychological harm from the job of filtering offensive content and specifically using contractors to avoid any long-term work compensation costs for counseling. Or is your point that it's not viable for Facebook to take upon those costs or expect to have to deal with workers in some fashion that doesn't allow them to dissolve financial or other responsibility?

      It seems pretty clear to me if that Facebook recognizes that the job is substantially toxic to the mental health of its workers to the point that it's not viable for them to actually hire people without possibly violating OSHA regulations that it means they simply cannot have that job position. If their platform is not viable with that job position, then their platform is not viable. If Facebook wants to own all your data, then they should own the responsibility for that data along side the creator.

      My gut feeling though is that as horrible as the job is, it's not something that could not be adequately paid for by Facebook including all associated financial psychological costs. Once that part is covered, most governments feel adults have sufficient choice and protection to not interfere. Really, your mentality seems as absurd as arguing factories where people complain about missing guard rails who keep falling into and dying from machinery could just be hired as contractors with wording in the contract that absolves themselves of OSHA or other compensation claims.

    2. Re:*Imagines the job qualifications and interview* by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are ways to limit the harm that this sort of work can do. Military orgs around the world have been studying it for decades, to try to prevent their soldiers getting PTSD and becoming ineffective. They have also been studying how to make it worse, as a tactic to use against the enemy.

      One example would be limiting exposure. Rather than doing this for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week they might get only be assigned half an hour a day, with the option to continue for up to say two hours if they feel they are okay to do that. The limited exposure and granting of some control over the process really helps psychologically.

      Of course the problem for Facebook is that they don't have enough staff already, and reducing them all from 37.5 hours/week to 2.5-10 will mean they have to hire a huge number more and either make the part time or find them other work to do in the mean time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:*Imagines the job qualifications and interview* by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Oh,
      I had no problem working an 40h shift to review content.
      I would simply approve every picture ... who am I to censor what a brave citizen wants to post on his own timeline? /sarcasm

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:*Imagines the job qualifications and interview* by mysidia · · Score: 2

      One example would be limiting exposure. Rather than doing this for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week they might get only be assigned half an hour a day

      What they should do is give their reviewers a numerical scale for "Grotesqueness of the Image/Content":

      0=Benign/Keep, 1=Questionable, 2=Patently Offensive, 3=Obscene or Policy Violation (DELETE), 4=Extremely Obscene, 5=Grotesque, Repulsive, Shocking

      And carefully monitor their employee's reactions to the images --- both by counting the number of 4s or 5s rated in a particular shift and tracking their employee's facial expressions.

      After rating a submission a (4) or a (5) --- the moderation system should give them some kind of relief, for example, the rest of the items they will be presented for rating for a while has secretly already been marked as a (0), (1), or (2) by one of their peers, and they're just adding a second opinion to confirm the rating [the moderator shouldn't know whether another moderator has reviewed and scored it or not]; meanwhile a peer who hasn't given out any (4) or (5)s will be more likely to see content a human has not scored but that a computer predicted would be a 4 or a 5.

      Also, when a FB user wants to report someone's content as Obscene, they should be requested to fill in the same rating scale.
      And if more than one of their ratings on "reported abuse" turns out to be off the wall from what multiple moderators said, then that FB user loses their reporting privileges.

    5. Re:*Imagines the job qualifications and interview* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a DoD organization that reviews execution and torture videos posted online.
      They do not do anything modern, cutting edge, proactive, kind, or helpful. They're the government. They will do things the way they've always done them, and you WILL cope like a man, you pussy, and stop whining about "PTSD". You're looking at pictures, not getting shot. You want breaks? Get a job at McDonalds! Now go watch that video of a child beheading again, and this time ID the guy!

      Some of that may have been quotes from government managers.

  10. And how do these people want to do it? by gweihir · · Score: 0

    Should somebody else watch all videos and moderate them for the moderators? Apparently, logical thinking is not available to the ones complaining here...

    Also, I very much doubt that much illegal content gets uploaded to Facebook, were it should be pretty easy to identify who did it. People getting traumatized by legal content, on the other hand, should not agree to do this job in the first place.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Also, I very much doubt that much illegal content gets uploaded to Facebook, were it should be pretty easy to identify who did it.

      You'd be surprised...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      I was going to comment the same thing. Apparently they want content moderators to filter the uploaded content before the content moderators filter the uploaded content.

    3. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Could be taken directly from "Idiocracy".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Should somebody else watch all videos and moderate them for the moderators? Apparently, logical thinking is not available to the ones complaining here...

      That's called the users, numbnuts. Moderates nominally only get involved after users report "illegal content". Ergo, these moderators are specifically watching content that has a substantial probability of being illegal.

      Also, I very much doubt that much illegal content gets uploaded to Facebook, were it should be pretty easy to identify who did it. People getting traumatized by legal content, on the other hand, should not agree to do this job in the first place.

      Criminals do stupid shit and post it all the time, which is part of the reason they get got. Actually tracking down the source of an illegal video and not merely it's poster is not something that's inherently trivial or necessarily something which law enforcement will rapidly act on, especially as moderators are each expected to go through 10 million potential rule breaking post per week. Someone engage in a murder-suicide, suicide bombing, or generally suicide (which is oddly enough illegal in most places) also likely won't be around to face charges. There's also VPNs, bots, etc. Meanwhile, a lot of videos of stuff is perfectly legal even if the actions themselves are illegal/accidents. Would you like to watch 5 hours straight of car accidents?

      So with your head firmly up your ass, what is the lawsuit demanding? That Facebook follows industry standards--things like reducing the resolution/quality of reported potential rule breaking content (with presumably an ability to restore quality as necessary)--and "On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Ms. Scola brings this action to stop these unlawful and unsafe workplace practices, to ensure Facebook and Pro Unlimited (collectively, “Defendants”) provide content moderators with proper mandatory onsite and ongoing mental health treatment and support, and to establish a medical monitoring fund for testing and providing mental health treatment to the thousands of former and current content moderators affected by Defendants’ unlawful practices." which can't use Pro Unlimited to contractual avoid nominal good industry practices.

      Honestly, you're a contemptible asshole. You refuse to recognize the plainly obvious that people post horrible stuff online, whether it's illegal or not, and people whose job it is to process this, unless they're mentally defective, will develop mental defects without substantial ongoing counseling. The whole notion that people would seek these jobs and to have contempt for them because they suffer in them is as horrible as the standards in the past before the likes of OSHA where jobs that maimed people were common and expected without compensation or any serious effort to protect workers. If you honestly believe that that's the sort of workplace that should exist, I invite you to turn your own home into that sort of a physical death trap. Certainly, you're already a mental death trap.

    5. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by gweihir · · Score: 0

      Read my Sig.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you, you know, post it because "Anonymous Coward" can't read Sigs. Then maybe I can figure out why your Sig is relevant.

    7. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I'm really wondering who sees the content. Don't you usually just see stuff from your friends? Who are befriending the people that are posting the illegal content? I've never seen anything like the content in question on facebook. But I don't usually befriend random people I don't know. If somebody started sharing that kind of content, I would promptly block them.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah,
      he would be surprised.

      In Germany we had a case where 4 _boys_ about 15 or 16, raped a 14 year old girl.

      Surprisingly the girl went straight to the police!
      More surprisingly, the boys thought "we just had sex with a slut" and uploaded it on facebook.

      They got them just a few hours after the incident.

      Luckily, the police got them first ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think there's a whole weird world of Facebook that ordinary people who have friend lists that mostly mirror their real lives never see.

      My guess is its comprised of people making low-end money pushing scams and social-media-as-a-career, various swaths of low-income populations, bored and lonely shut-ins who will friend/like anything and have zero privacy settings, and then the truly weird and crazy bottom end of the population.

      Plus, it's an international system. You can participate in high weirdness outside your geography.

      I've been in lots of bars, but I've never seen a bar fight, gang rape or other type of horrible thing in a bar. I think it mostly just means I don't associate with those kinds of people or go to those kinds of bars, not that they don't exist.

    10. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And how often does that happen? Enough to give thousands of moderators a lot of incidents of that nature? No. It does not. This is so rare that it makes the national news.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course it is rare.
      I posted that only to support the parents point: there is no limit to human stupidity.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] My guess is its comprised of people making low-end money pushing scams and social-media-as-a-career, various swaths of low-income populations, bored and lonely shut-ins who will friend/like anything and have zero privacy settings, and then the truly weird and crazy bottom end of the population.[...]

      Otherwise known as 'propagandists'.

    13. Re:And how do these people want to do it? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Ok, but while this occurrence happens rarely, it can be downloaded and reposted thousand times by various people, for various reasons. Then it's like a cancer which moderators fight to eradicate.
      Then you have car accidents occurring while being on Facebook Live, security cam footage of horrible scenes being uploaded and so on. Imagine liveleak posted on Facebook a thousand times over and having to be removed.

      I worked as a field cameraman between 1999 and 2000, for a local TV in a town 50,000 people strong. There was a gruesome event every day. Fires, suicides, car accidents, you name it. We were contracted by the police to record all of those on tape and hand them a copy for their records. Back then it was difficult for Average Joe to record a footage of what happened and even more difficult to digitalize it and upload it to whatever excuse of social media existed at the time. Now, and passersby can pull out their phone and start recording video straight to Facebook. It's amazing how often people prioritize their brief moment of fame against the obvious need to help the victims of the event.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  11. How do you become moderator? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    I'm asking for a friend...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How do you become moderator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let your friend know that moderators don't get a private room. So he won't be able to fap while on the job. He may even end up traumatised by the pressure build up of not being able to bust one out when the continuous onslaught of filth has kept his todger rock hard for the full 8 hour shift.

    2. Re:How do you become moderator? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Teleworking ftw!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:How do you become moderator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm asking for a friend...

      You don't want that job. 5% of the stuff you'll filter out is legal porn. Then you'll get another 5% illegal porn. Then you'll face swaths of things worse than goatse and tubgirl which polite people don't even mention. I've had to moderate on small forums before, and I can only imagine the horrific stuff that gets uploaded to Facebook, up to and including live murders.

    4. Re:How do you become moderator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By Accidenture!!

  12. The more we learn the worse they are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When was the last time we learned something good about the people that run facebook, twitter, reddit or amazon ?

  13. Re:Require job seekers to be DEMs by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Them REPs like to kill prisoners, so they...

    Works both ways.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Facebook, who is it good for? by ruddk · · Score: 2

    Facebook, who is it good for, except for the owner.
    What could go wrong when someone who seems to be anti-social, created a "social" website. :D

    1. Re:Facebook, who is it good for? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      I thought you were quoting Bruce Springsteen and others.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:Facebook, who is it good for? by ruddk · · Score: 1

      Well, it looks like a war zone of stupid on Facebook. I choose not to participate. :)

  15. Change the hiring advert? by Rande · · Score: 2

    There's some people who must enjoy looking at this stuff (otherwise it wouldn't get posted), so why not just hire them?

    Psychopaths need jobs too you know.

    1. Re:Change the hiring advert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's some people who must enjoy looking at this stuff (otherwise it wouldn't get posted), so why not just hire them?

      Psychopaths need jobs too you know.

      Their job is to prevent this content from being spread on the internet, and you suggest they start hiring fucking fans of this shit?

      And here I thought I was going to be prepared for such stupidity before my morning coffee. I was wrong.

  16. hire 4chan moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They put up with everything, don't ban random shit for no reason (except sometimes as a joke), and they sure as shit don't get mental illness from moderating.

    1. Re: hire 4chan moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're already mentally I'll.

  17. Just goes to show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That not even Indians can do everything. :-D

  18. What about the poor people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the poor people eho have to moderate videos with lawyers, politicians, Kardashians and reality TV?

    Just think of the severe trauma suffered by people like me who have to listen to people wearing suits say words like synergy all the time?

    I honestly feel nothing for anyone who is forced to see beastialty and child molestation when I have to see and hear MBAs and lawyers. I think they are all equally scaring... and to be fair... they probably were told about this going into the job... and they still chose to take a job watching child pornography... so suck it up or quit.

  19. Didn't they outsource it to Philippines? by azrael29a · · Score: 1

    I thought they had those content moderators mostly in Philippines.
    source: Vice: The Companies Cleaning the Deepest, Darkest Parts of Social Media

  20. I can believe it by Millennium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Law enforcement officers who work on child-pornography cases have their own specialized therapists. There's even a name for the stuff they face: Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder (STSD), brought on by repeatedly witnessing events that traumatize people.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all if many Facebook mods needed this same kind of treatment, given the stuff they have to deal with. Hell; some Slashdot mods could probably use it.

    1. Re:I can believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know many of us could use that after seeing APK posts

  21. Another snowflake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did people become so unable to deal with things? Must come from the helicopter parents who never wanted a single negative thing to happen to their kids. The world is not a Utopia of peace and calm and to accept this and move on is a much more healthy process then complaining that it needs to go away.

  22. LOL by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    You've got to be kidding... I mean, you only use moderators that are cleared (psychologically) for being able to wacht those streams. You don't just put anybody on moderating content.
    But if it pays better than my current (development) job, where can I sign up.. Still looking for content that really traumatises me, still haven't found it (PS. that doesn't mean I enjoy the content, it just means I'm not traumatized by it).

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is new territory, and you do not know what these people have seen.

      After one missed email from a big shot CEO to our CEO, I spent six months reviewing everything our spam catchers caught, and it still bothers me.

      There are some sick people in the world, sick in ways I hope you don't understand.

      This was 15 years ago, I'm a 59 year old man, I've seen things in life, but there's a party of humanity that's an abyss.

      And no, it's not just pr0n with kids and dogs and snuff films. There are worse things.

  23. An ounce of prevention... by oic0 · · Score: 1

    Maybe just inform the people before they upload videos that all videos are subject to review and illegal content will be submitted to law enforcement after which Facebook will do everything in their power to help prosecute you. Sure that will reduce the number of people caught doing bad things, but that's not Facebook's problem. They're under no obligation to police people.

    1. Re:An ounce of prevention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not possible to submit "illegal content" to "law enforcement", because typically only a court can determine what's illegal, and that's one step beyond the "law enforcement", I think.

    2. Re:An ounce of prevention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, mr pedant "potentially illegal content" then.

  24. Outsource it to Honduras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their news is pretty much completely uncensored. The evening news reporter is usually walking around a few dead bodies in the street, practically poking them to see if they are alive.

  25. not just janitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about people who service sewers?
    What about people who work in the ER?
    What about people who work in combat zones?
    Are the aforementioned able to "un-see" things more easily than content moderators? I seriously doubt it.
    This whining, gold digging, ex-Facebook "moderator" needs more perspective.and to man-up.

    1. Re: not just janitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the people actually posting this disgusting material?

    2. Re: not just janitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are in government.

  26. Innocent people are unqualified for this job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need is prisoners who have committed the crimes depicted in the videos to be the ones doing the moderation. They won't need to be paid anything for their work, but take a month off their sentence for every 1,000 videos that are processed, something like that. If they've already committed the crime, they'll be quite desensitized already. Looking at a picture of murder would be mild if you're in the position to already know what that *smells* like.

    Just match the crimes to the types of videos to be moderated. Murderer? You get the murder videos. Rapist? You'll be watching rapes from now on. Animal torturer? Guess what videos you'll be handling!

    Who knows, maybe by exposing criminals to this content enough times, they'll get sick of it, too. Kinda like catching your teenager smoking, and making him smoke that entire pack of cigarettes in one sitting as punishment.

    1. Re:Innocent people are unqualified for this job. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Just match the crimes to the types of videos to be moderated. Murderer? You get the murder videos. Rapist? You'll be watching rapes from now on. Animal torturer? Guess what videos you'll be handling!

      Who do you use to categorize the videos, so that your murderer doesn't get traumatized by a rape video?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    2. Re:Innocent people are unqualified for this job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I nominate Martin Shkreli

  27. faceplant is mental trauma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    faceplant is mental trauma

  28. First time goatse could be modded as insightful by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Well, at last! this is a case where lining a first post to Goatse would actually have been informative and insightful. Accidentally opening something like tub girl is an eye scalding experience that rewires your brain as you try desperately to unsee it.

    But how in the heck would you "protect" a moderator from this sort of thing.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  29. content moderators stressed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't monitor content, problem solved.

    Information wants to be free, any contrary efforts are ultimately doomed to fail.

  30. Re:Require job seekers to be DEMs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes an unborn baby is just the same as someone convicted of rape and murder.

    Exceptional logic. Don't forget to Pokemon GO! to the polls!

  31. just hire kids from 4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they look at that shit all day for fun already

  32. One person's trauma ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    Would you like to watch 5 hours straight of car accidents?

    [Yawn]

    What gets to me is having to read about AGW, UBI or "she won" over and over. Where's my trauma support?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:One person's trauma ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What gets to me is having to read about AGW, UBI or "she won" over and over. Where's my trauma support?

      The second you are paid and expected to read "trauma[tic]" content on a regular basis, you can ask/demand trauma support from your employer. If on the other hand you're just some jackass who in their free time chooses to read AGW, UBI, etc from their own volition without anyone paying you to read such content, you can pay for your own trauma support. Is that too difficult a concept to absorb or do you want us all here to pay for the trauma support to help you digest your rampant stupidity?

      Honestly, I don't know if you're a sadist, a sociopath, or a dogmatic fascist who will blindly disable whatever internal conscience you have in place of some other person's in the name of some agenda. Comparing the choice reading of a variety of content and being upset because the truth doesn't match your world view vs people simply asking to have someone to talk to about the very worst of the internet--aka the Chapter Black Tape--constantly being pumped through their screen on a daily basis... I can't believe you're honestly oblivious to both the worst that humanity is capable of as well as the willingness of those to record and share such activities to others. "Car accidents" are by far the tamest thing to witness in that sphere.

  33. Re:Require job seekers to be DEMs by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    No, of course not. One is a human being, the other a parasite.

    We just have different opinions on which is which.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  34. Where is AI when you need it? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    This would be an ideal job for an expert system. Not the silly Google Assistant (or whatever it's called today), Alexa or Siri, which are good for grins and giggles, and little more. An expert system able to go over all those images and automatically discard the immense majority of the filth would be invaluable.

    1. Re:Where is AI when you need it? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Also quite infeasible, since expert systems cannot do this. You would need strong AI, but that does not exist and may well never exist.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  35. I have a solution by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Buy job ads on rotten.com.

    1. Re:I have a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that site even still around? I'm at work...

  36. Help employees, yes, contractors, no by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Employers have responsibilities to their direct employees.

    Outside contractors have responsibilities to their own direct employees.

    Facebook should have no legal obligations to the employees of contractors other than to limit exposure and to not expose them to dangerous things that are beyond the scope of their job. All the things they are complaining about are within the scope of their job.

    Now, Facebook may have a moral responsibility to include in its contract that all contracting firms must provide psychological screening prior to placement, regular breaks, emergency/puke breaks as needed, and mental health care for their own employees.

    Facebook would be wise to not hire independent contractors unless they first make sure the independent contractor had a note from a psychological professional stating that the person had a suitable psychological profile and that the person had access to psychological care when needed.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  37. ID and minorities by DrYak · · Score: 1

    initial data point :
      - minorities are less likely to possess an ID.

    Logic in the US :
      - it's racist to require an ID for voting as all the ID-less minorities won't have their voice heard.
    (thus don't require ID for voting. But keep requiring ID for nearly everything else in life, and ID-less minorities are still having problems with all these other activities).

    Logic in nearly everywhere :
      - if ID is such an important thing for so many critical actions (getting a job, among other), maybe we should try to find ways to make it easier for minorities to actually get one ?
      - alternatively : make sure to provide free voter-ID to anyone who wants to vote (and that document can also double as a make-shift ID in lots of critical cases).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:ID and minorities by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      In most States that require voter ID, there is a way to get ID for free. Now, the usual cry is "but you have to go somewhere and stand in line and wait around forever and that's racist!" but I guess ANY effort at all is considered racist today. Which makes me wonder why we even vote - it's effort required to cast a ballot (just checking off boxes on a form and then stuffing into an envelope and attaching stamps - wait, Stamps? That's a tax!) so we should eliminate that as well, and just let our Betters Choose For Us.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:ID and minorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recently in my jurisdiction the vote-by-mail ballots now come with a business reply (i.e., no postage for sender) envelope. As one who has opted for vote-by-mail for many years, this is actually quite a convenience as it's just about the only time I send something by snailmail now. Therefore, I don't have many stamps around and our ballots often weigh more than one ounce so I have to figure out what it weighs and then figure out what combination of stamps are "enough".

    3. Re:ID and minorities by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      In my state they'll actually go to where you live to give you a free photo ID, but I guess asking people to call to have someone come to their home is asking for too much effort.

      People have to show an ID to sign up for welfare, but not to vote. What a country!

  38. Re:First post? by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    Better than the which from Yellow Brick Road, Hillary. You do know that was her in the movie right?

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  39. low levels of moderation by DrYak · · Score: 0

    Facebook should hire more /b/tards.

    Which then will cause the treshold for moderation to go way up, as the /b/tards simply don't understand what's the problem with videos of {GRAPHICAL_HORRIBLE_THING happening to cute innocent young girls}

    You need somebody whose capability to register disturbing things hasn't been completely number by 4chan, if you want them to be still competent at noticing and moderating disturbing content.

    I'm not even speaking about having empathy, just being still able to remember that nails have specifical place where they can go into and that usually doesn't cover much of the human body.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:low levels of moderation by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can be completely unaffected by an image and still understand the image meets a classification of not being acceptable.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re: low levels of moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to be shattered by something to know it's unacceptable and should be deleted and reported to the FBI.

  40. Re:First post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which witch?

  41. Recurrent / CNNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if there is a way to combine these types of neural nets (forgive me, I'm not a researcher, still rather a beginner and studying CNNs now) such that they recognize actions? If that is the case, companies like FB could help moderators by running these networks against videos before they go public, and help the public by stating what the networks are looking for, and when they flag, which ones flagged it and why.

    It would certainly be better than the moderators they have now, who have extreme political bias.

  42. Just hire psychos by webinstinct · · Score: 1

    ... and then reverse the ban/allow buttons. Problem solved.

  43. Sue Facebook for traumatizing users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Facebook causes irrepairable harm to everyone who uses it and there should be a class-action lawsuit for every last one of them. The reparations should be one thing only: The total destruction of Facebook. Then we take that precedent and destroy all other so-called 'social media' cancer, too.

  44. Re: *Imagines the job qualifications and interview by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    Maybe have everyone in the company moderate for 5 or 10 minutes a day. Delegate the burnout evenly between the available employees if you don't want to hire more. Otherwise - problems. Problems that many companies have. Facebook isn't unique there.

  45. You choose to work in a sewer by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

    and then complain about the conditions?

    Here's a hint: wear a rain coat and galoshes, at least!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:You choose to work in a sewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* Another moderator gets triggered

  46. I cannot unsee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    certain images that have scrolled past on my Facebook feed. I can't even fathom looking at that crap as a paying job.

  47. I've been there somewhat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked at several of the major search engines in the early 2000's. Unfortunately you end up looking at a lot of disturbing images and porn just to verify results of the tools you are building or the algorithms you are tweaking. I still remember and am glad I'm out of it. I can't imagine what content reviewers have to cope with looking at this stuff full time.

  48. Communists are like carpenter ants or termites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll only infest a solid framework. Burning the tech industry to the ground is the only way to fix this.

  49. Re:First post? by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    got me

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  50. Re: *Imagines the job qualifications and interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be very expensive to keep everyone in the company up to date on the current rules and their accepted interpretations.

    As well, if someone who takes on the job as a censor, presumably they have a fairly high tolerance for maintaining a distance between what they view at work and their day-to-day life (and will quit soon if they discover they are wrong about their self-assessment). This is sort of a job requirement.

    However, someone who codes Java or designs web pages or works in accounting is much more likely to be a fragile special snowflake who could be haunted for a long time by a single image -- even one that actually didn't quite cross the line by FB's hyper-sensitive standards, let alone one that was an extreme example of a violation of those standards.

  51. again, difference in handling by DrYak · · Score: 1

    In most States that require voter ID, there is a way to get ID for free. Now, the usual cry is "but you have to go somewhere and stand in line and wait around forever and that's racist!" but I guess ANY effort at all is considered racist today.

    And keeping with the same reflexion as I started above :

    Poor people/minorities/Etc. don't have a wide choice of jobs and option for housing. Usually they live where the rent is the cheapest is some outskirts of a region and work completely at the opposite, because that's where there's work for them.
    But they can't afford a car, so they need to commute through 3 different old half-broken buses. I they miss one, they'll have to wait a long time until the next. Overall they spend several hours each day just to go to work, which leaves very little time for anything else, even sleeping and eating.
    No way to get anything else crammed into such a schedule.

    US mentality :
      - complain loudly that requiring poor people to obtain an ID is racist, because the minority can't cram it into their shitty life, only privileged white cis-het-male can easily do it, it's discriminatory !...

    Rest of the developed world's mentality :
      - notice that the above life is fundamentally unacceptable.
    thus builds an actual useful public transportation network so owning a car isn't a necessity to have a normal life.
    Yes, said network is build using money coming from taxes, we're evil socialo-eruo-communists!

    (Also:
      - social welfare and un employment benefit means that losing jobs/switching jobs is less a death sentence. If the job is that much shitty, it means you could decide to drop it and move to something more reasonable.
      - also in some places, voter-ID is delivered for free to your mailbox, and you can vote for free using mail (and various pilot project for internet voting too).
    you just need to be registered your address with the local authorities to get your voting material (and lots of other benefits).
      - also, when you move in, it is mandatory for your employer to give you a day off so you can register your new address to get all the administrative benefits (including voting material mailed) ).

    In general, when something that more or less makes basically sense but conflict due to poor people/minorities/etc. having shitty life :
      - US will loudly complain that the minorities are discriminated against, and completely blocks the change that would have otherwise made sense.
      - the rest of the developed world will actually try to fix the problems that was a barrage to poor people/minorities. Not only does it enable to pass the change that makes sense, but in the same go could fix tons of other problems that the minorities are facing.

    (well okay, here in Europe we also have France, were complaining loudly about everything and being constantly on strike is a national sport).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:again, difference in handling by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      because the minority can't cram it into their shitty life, only privileged white cis-het-male can easily do it, it's discriminatory !

      Wow - one of the most racist lines I have read here

    2. Re:again, difference in handling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because the minority can't cram it into their shitty life, only privileged white cis-het-male can easily do it, it's discriminatory !

      Wow - one of the most racist lines I have read here

      Yeah, totally racist - when taken completely out of context of everything else the poster wrote. ::eyeroll::

  52. Re: *Imagines the job qualifications and interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe have everyone in the company moderate for 5 or 10 minutes a day. Delegate the burnout evenly between the available employees if you don't want to hire more. Otherwise - problems. Problems that many companies have. Facebook isn't unique there.

    Moderating images of beheadings, child rape and bestiality are NOT "problems that many companies have", so perhaps we should just ignore your incredibly shortsighted and ignorant suggestion of making everyone do that job as if you're asking people to chip in for a fucking coffee fund.

    Assuming people can withstand even 5 minutes exposure to what the sickest human minds on the planet are creating is like saying everyone can handle 5 minutes on the front line in a war. Needless to say, most of your employees are not cut out for that shit, and you WILL have far more problems trying to "delegate" burnout.

    Thousands of people don't join a class-action lawsuit because the work environment here is "kind of bad" for the snowflakes. No, this is FUBAR-level shit that breaks minds rather permanently, and I'm forever thankful I was never in a financial position to be forced to take such a job.

  53. my anus brings all the boys to the yard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then how come they took down my wikipedia copied picture of "human anus".

    why can't i use that as my profile picture?

    i'm just following popeye, i yam what i yams, and i aint what i aints