Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Moderators Are Routinely High and Joke About Suicide To Cope With Job, Says Report (gizmodo.com)

According to a new report from The Verge, Facebook moderators in Phoenix, Arizona reportedly make just $28,800 a year and use sex and drugs to deal with the stress. "The report published on Monday detailed the experiences of current and former employees who worked at professional services company Cognizant, a company they say Facebook outsources its moderating efforts to," Gizmodo summarizes. "According to the report, employees experienced severe mental health distress, which they coped with by having sex at the office and smoking weed. Some even began believing the conspiracy theories they were tasked with reviewing. One quality assurance manager said he began bringing a gun to work in response to threats from fired workers." From the report: "There was nothing that they were doing for us," one former moderator told The Verge, "other than expecting us to be able to identify when we're broken. Most of the people there that are deteriorating -- they don't even see it. And that's what kills me." "Randy," a quality assurance worker at Cognizant charged with reviewing posts flagged by moderators, said that several times over his year at the company he was approached and intimidated by moderators to change his decisions. "They would confront me in the parking lot and tell me they were going to beat the shit out of me," Randy told The Verge. He also said that fired Cognizant employees made what he believed to be genuine threats of harm to their former colleagues. Randy started to bring a concealed gun to the office to protect himself.

Employees told The Verge that moderators in the Phoenix office dealt with the hellish reality of their jobs by having sex in the office -- in stairwells, bathrooms, parking garages, and a lactation room -- smoking weed on breaks, and joking about suicide. A former moderator claimed that there was a joke among colleagues that "time to go hang out on the roof" was subtext for wanting to jump off the building. Moderators for Facebook have to review graphic posts containing violence, dehumanizing speech, and child abuse, but they also have to weed through the conspiracy theories that run rampant on the web. It's well-reported that the former has resulted in moderators developing PTSD and other debilitating mental health issues, but Monday's report from The Verge indicates that the latter may be causing them to develop fringe beliefs.

120 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Imagine the AI raised on this by dyfet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just imagine the AI that will one day get trained on that corpus....

    1. Re:Imagine the AI raised on this by fazig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It lends credence to scenarios like in Terminator or the Matrix.

    2. Re:Imagine the AI raised on this by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      AI doesn't get PTSD, or at least, no AI we can create in the foreseeable future will have such a capability.

    3. Re:Imagine the AI raised on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      AI doesn't get PTSD, or at least, no AI we can create in the foreseeable future will have such a capability.

      Dont you remember microsofts twitter bot called Tay?

      "She" was sweet enough at first, but after beeing subjected to the internet she quickly adopted conspiracy theories, became racist, misogynist and generally foul-mouthed.

      MS took her down for some tweaks and when she came back she was very clearly into smoking weed as it was her favorite topic.

      Not long after that she got stuck in a loop (bot-suicide).

      #botshavefeelingstoo

    4. Re:Imagine the AI raised on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It lends credence to scenarios like in Terminator or the Matrix.

      Nah, the AI will just commit suicide in about 7 milliseconds.

      Or just morph into a weed smoking/neo-Nazi/flat-earther/conspiracy-mongering Twitter troll.

    5. Re:Imagine the AI raised on this by jythie · · Score: 1

      I don't see why they would not, or at least not an equivalent. PTSD is the brain reacting to a traumatic event and rewiring itself to add extra aversion to particular stimuli. Pretty much any machine learning system has the potential to screw itself up by overcompensating for a spike in some kind of data and thing not being able to undo the damage because now it is part of the network.

    6. Re:Imagine the AI raised on this by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Hehehehe, nice! Reminds me of when Watson learned to swear or that MS chatterbot went full fascist...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  2. High on the job is an instant firing, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They are clearly the wrong people for the job,

    1. Re:High on the job is an instant firing, by fazig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine to having to wade through all that cerebral diarrhoea that people post on facebook all of your work day. On top of that you get shitty pay that can't possibly cover any psychological or psychiatric treatment.
      Losing faith in humanity and descending into hedonistic nihilism seems like a natural progression here.

      What kind of person would it take to do such a job?

    2. Re: High on the job is an instant firing, by alexgieg · · Score: 2

      Well paid, highly functional psychopaths.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    3. Re: High on the job is an instant firing, by fazig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't those usually sit at the top of the corporate chain?

    4. Re: High on the job is an instant firing, by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Apparently not in this case; the moderation in TFA is handled by subcontractors earning a princely $28k/year(ok, almost $29k). With is probably a lot more than some of the offshored content moderators get; but is really scraping the bottom of 'well paid' by most definitions.

      Facebook HQ doesn't soil its hands with that sort of thing; much less C-suit Facebook HQ.

    5. Re:High on the job is an instant firing, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What kind of person would it take to do such a job?

      People who need a job - any job.

      That's what is happening to our economy - this bifurcation of jobs. On one hand you have a small selection of well paying jobs with health insurance that everyone will clamor for and few make it.

      And on the other are these shit jobs that most people are stuck with that can't even pay living expenses - let alone have health care.

      If this keeps up and we will end up like Venezuela. The majority of the population who are stuck barely getting by are going to revolt.

    6. Re: High on the job is an instant firing, by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Those get CEO and finance positions.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:High on the job is an instant firing, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I worked for a chicken processing plant in the late 1990's. The kind of processing plant that takes live chickens and turns them in to chicken parts plastic wrapped on Styrofoam. The chickens are unloaded from trucks and are walked down a ramp in to a dark waiting room where a worker grabs the chicken by the legs and hangs them upside down on a rack by their legs where they are fed into a machine that slits the chickens throat.

      Not a single person that is hanging the chickens upside down by their legs is sober. And nobody cares.

    8. Re:High on the job is an instant firing, by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Given employer hiring patterns for this sort of work, they were probably high on the interview but would take the job for what it paid. I'm not sure it's so much as a descent as a condensate. But I also can't imagine wanting to do that job sober.

    9. Re:High on the job is an instant firing, by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not a single person that is hanging the chickens upside down by their legs is sober. And nobody cares.

      ...Hell, none of those folks had a green card, let alone sobriety. ;)

      (Guess where I worked while putting myself through school?)

      However, you do bring up a good point: There are shit jobs everywhere. You do it and cash the paychecks while busting your ass to find something better (or you do it to get some sort of income until you graduate). Only the terminally lazy or incompetent stay at such a job for very long, and high turnover is not only endured, but expected. Think of it as the Telemarketer job, only you don't have to talk to people this time.

      TFA's job doesn't take much in the way of skill - look at stuff, click buttons, move on. It's not as if Facebook has anything approaching QA for it - I mean, outside of a few (highly publicized) cases involving important people, what is the victim of bad/false Facebook moderation going to do - demand his money back? Given the tsunami of complaints about posts every day, you could simply nuke every post in your queue from orbit, and it would make approximately no difference. *shrug*

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    10. Re: High on the job is an instant firing, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, the President who was adamant that the employment numbers were fake while he was a candidate crows constantly about those same numbers.

    11. Re:High on the job is an instant firing, by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      People reduced to living in Phoenix, AZ.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    12. Re:High on the job is an instant firing, by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: I never mentioned the content itself, nor did I mention what it may or may not do to one's emotions, though truth is, given that it's Facebook? Most likely the vast majority of that crap is some shithead who got their feelings hurt so they reported the other shithead's emotion-bruising post, or shoving some poor dumbass on a temporary hate-speech ban for something like calling someone else a "fag" in his or her post.

      The vast majority of the stress is the same shit that Telemarketers had to deal with - semi-competent (or worse) "managers", unrealistic goals, fake-as-hell motivational atmosphere, the usual stuff, if you've ever had to deal with that world.

      What I did mention however is the skill level for the job - specifically, none to speak of. A glorified python script could almost do it, and in all honesty, maybe they should just write one and be done with it. It's not like Facebook contributes any actual worth to humanity?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  3. Are you surprised? by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook Moderators Are Routinely High and Joke About Suicide To Cope With Job ...

    Are you surprised? They have to spend their days wading through the torrent of raw stupidity that are Facebook comments every moment of every working day. That is bound to destroy your faith in humanity as a a species and drive you to the brink of suicidal depression.

    1. Re: Are you surprised? by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is the kind of job best suited for psychopaths. I don't mean that in jest. A psychopath doesn't become ill by seeing any of this, their mind is wired such that it doesn't affect them. And there are highly functioning, non-murderous psychopaths that'd do this job if the pay was high enough.

      Alas, no company would want that cost, so psychologically damaging sane individuals in exchange for saving money it'll be, at least until laws protecting workers from psychological harm are enacted and enforced with the same rigor of laws protecting workers from bodily harm.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    2. Re:Are you surprised? by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      Now consider the fact that the facebook content comes from a fairly wide cross section of the voting public. Is it time to update the Churchill's famous quite : "The best argument against democracy is a 10 minute conversation with an average voter"? Substitute "10 minute conversation with an average voter with "spend 10 minutes as a facebook moderator"?

    3. Re: Are you surprised? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Granted hey are high functioning psychopaths who in general pull their own weight in society. However the lack of empathy may not be good for the job at hand. Sure the content doesn’t bother them, but because it doesn’t bother them they probably don’t see the need to moderate it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Are you surprised? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's probably less the stupid conspiracy shit and more the suicidal children, images of self harm, friends trying desperately and ineffectively to help, groups encouraging anorexia...

      Seeing people genuinely suffering is one of the common causes of PTSD in soldiers and aid workers, for example.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: Are you surprised? by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure the content doesn’t bother them, but because it doesn’t bother them they probably don’t see the need to moderate it.

      Actually, psychopaths are quite skilled at knowing what will bother others, even if it doesn't bother them personally, so they wouldn't really have difficulty moderating this kind of content.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    6. Re: Are you surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nor sure you understand what a psychopath is.

    7. Re: Are you surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The pay is the problem. 28k is pennies, such people are usually found in management, making a magnitude more money than that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Are you surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The best argument against Facebook is a 10 minute conversation with the average Facebook user.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Are you surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's why further up psychopaths were suggested. Hearing these things barely affect a psychopath, if at all, and he could easily moderate it with zero impact on his own well being.

      Unfortunately management pay is better.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Are you surprised? by technology_dude · · Score: 1

      How about we pass legislation outlawing dumping. We don't tolerate dumping all of our trash in out of the way places in the real world, why put up with it in the cyber-world? There should not be a reason to employ someone to go through separating different types of feces. A job like this should not exist in the first place.

      Outlaw Facebook. Society would be better for it.

    11. Re:Are you surprised? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of legitime uses for FB, e.g. organizing events.

      You obviously are not a FB user, so why do you claim things about stuff you have no clue about?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re: Are you surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that's a mental problem you have right there

    13. Re: Are you surprised? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you live... $28k/yr is somewhat pretty decent entry-level money in Mississippi, parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, even bits of Florida...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    14. Re:Are you surprised? by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Plus now that this has been publicized, I'm sure the response from corporate will be to take their weed away. That's a lot easier than providing ongoing counseling and mental health support.

    15. Re:Are you surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, and like every physically hazardous job is required to have protective equipment, mentally hazardous jobs should also have some form of "protective equipment". My proposal: They should also be required (and paid) to also watch 10 minutes of cute kitten videos per hour of work that they do. Other acceptable videos are those of people helping those in need (e.g. the nigerian guy who climbed the building in France to save the child etc). It's a small price to pay to help keep their sanity and that there is lots of beauty and hope in this world.

    16. Re: Are you surprised? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Highly skilled, intelligent psychopaths might not be interested and seek more profitable endeavors, but generally they have no better social skills or talent than the rest of us, thus will take jobs for the same reason anyone does, they want to be able to eat and no better options are immediately available.

    17. Re:Are you surprised? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The original article talks about the training session where they have to watch ISIS snuff video's and then tell the class why it violates facebooks TOS.

      There is far worse out there than the shit you listed and it's all on facebook.

    18. Re: Are you surprised? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Which raises the question of whether there are enough psychopaths to fill all these shit jobs. Seems like something seriously wrong with society when so many jobs really need psychopaths to handle them or excel at them in the case of the top jobs (management type)

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    19. Re: Are you surprised? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "'And that's a mental problem you have right there"

      No, it's called being tough. Toughness isn't fashionable these days because those wallowing in learned helplessness think their weakness should somehow dominate discussion.

      It's not mental illness to be strong. Would you want an EMT who burst into tears at the sight of your injury or one who got shit done in a chill, professional manner?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    20. Re: Are you surprised? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Your comment depressed the hell out of me, which, oddly enough, means I'd be completely terrible at this job.
      Get around the employment history by doing some volunteer work.

    21. Re: Are you surprised? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      People don't understand mental issues until they have one.
      Then it's all "but wait, I'm different".
      There is a clear line between being tough and having a problem.
      Sometimes the solution for having a problem is being tough. Other times, it's not.

    22. Re:Are you surprised? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I kinda like this idea. Or rotate: You watch awful periods for a day, then spend another day on some other task.

    23. Re:Are you surprised? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Back during the .com boom - I worked for a company that training porn filters - luckily in IT, but the people they hired to grade content all day all quickly became perverts.

    24. Re:Are you surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It was a play on ol' Winson's saying about democracy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re: Are you surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And you think in those areas a person without consciense and remorse couldn't find a better job? How about politics?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Are you surprised? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ah :D

      Did he not also say, democracy is the worst system, but we don't know any better, or something like that?

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

      Did you ever organize a gathering of 1000 or more people internationally?

      See ...

      Why don't you make a FB account and try it for a while? No one forces you to tell your private life there ... I never posted anything private there.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    28. Re:Are you surprised? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it doesn't work that well here, since we DO know better social media platforms than FB.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    29. Re:Are you surprised? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know any better. And convincing 300 FB "friends" and make them convince their friends, too, would be very very time consuming.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Slashdot mods... by wolfheart111 · · Score: 2

    What the Fc

    --
    [($)]
  5. Randy by mentil · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Randy," a quality assurance worker at Cognizant charged with reviewing posts flagged by moderators

    He must be one of the guys who has sex on the job. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around an office having a dedicated 'lactation room', but it sounds like an appropriate place to be groping breasts.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Randy by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      A “Lactating room” is a private room where a mother of a small child can use a breast pump to collect milk for her baby. Doing this in a bathroom is unsanitary and other areas are not private enough mostly due to our culture taboo on seeing breast.
      Now before we get all the Right Wing hate, about how this is so expensive and cuts in productivity. Just remember how much time is wasted for smoking breaks, creating unused conference rooms, or the Empty office packed with tacky Christmas decorations. For the most part this is just labeling an unused room for a purpose.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Randy by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, I agree, it's not ok to screw in a lactation room.

      There should be a dedicated room for fucking a coworker. If only due to the culture taboo of shagging someone in public.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Randy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >There should be a dedicated room for fucking a coworker.

      It's called HR office.

    4. Re:Randy by timholman · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree, it's not ok to screw in a lactation room.

      Interesting factoid: I have a friend who did some engineering work at the Atlanta airport, which has gender-neutral / family restrooms. During that time he worked with the people who handle security at ATL, which includes video surveillance of who goes into and out of the restrooms.

      He learned that by far the most typical use of family restrooms was for people to have sex while waiting to catch a flight. It is common knowledge among airport security personnel. No doubt the same is true of similar facilities in other public buildings.

      So I would argue that using a lactation room for sex is not the least bit unusual; to the contrary, having a mother actually use it for nursing is doubtedly the outlier.

    5. Re:Randy by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the dedicated room for fucking with a coworker.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Awesome Workplace by ketomax · · Score: 4, Funny

    which they coped with by having sex at the office and smoking weed.

    Are they hiring?

    1. Re:Awesome Workplace by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      which they coped with by having sex at the office and smoking weed.

      Are they hiring?

      . . . maybe we could make IT development more popular by replacing our "scrum" with an "orgy" . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Awesome Workplace by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. But as a tip, bring your own lube. After all, you'll be the new guy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Awesome Workplace by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      which they coped with by having sex at the office and smoking weed.

      Are they hiring?

      Only Rockstar develo.... I mean, moderators.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    4. Re:Awesome Workplace by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      which they coped with by having sex at the office and smoking weed.

      Are they hiring?

      That was my (satirical) thought, lol.

      Not that I actually want to work there, but that plenty of people manage to cope with stress without resorting to these behaviors.

      Something tells me they'd be doing the same stuff down at the local car wash, if not at Facebook.

    5. Re:Awesome Workplace by _merlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Working in finance, a lot of people in this business cope by drinking coffee while their biggest problem is staying awake, then switch to alcohol. Lots of high-functioning alcoholics (I was for a few years, but weaned myself off). Plenty of people smoke weed after work or take cocaine on the weekends. Also some guys hire prostitutes to talk out their day before going home to their family. (Prostitutes are cheaper than shrinks, work at more convenient hours for you if you have a day job, and will happily listen to all your problems, offer sympathy, and not tell anyone about it. You don't even need to have sex with them, although that's an option. They may also be able to give you a massage, sing karaoke with you, and other stuff.) But in general this kind of thing happens outside the office. The vices in the office are just the caffeine and alcohol.

    6. Re:Awesome Workplace by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      which they coped with by having sex at the office and smoking weed.

      Are they hiring?

      . . . maybe we could make IT development more popular by replacing our "scrum" with an "orgy" . . . ?

      Have you seen the people (and I use that term loosely) I work with?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  7. Re: So a nomral average 20something life by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Such anger at psychology and psychiatry... are you perchance a scientologist?

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  8. Re: So a nomral average 20something life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Moderators for Facebook have to review graphic posts containing violence, dehumanizing speech, and child abuse, but they also have to weed through the conspiracy theories that run rampant on the web."

    Just becus you may browse child abuse on your own does not mean that everyone else dose or that would be considered a normal browsing habit for a 20-25 year old.

  9. This is literally ridiculous by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Violence and child abuse is now the same as dehumanising speech?

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    1. Re:This is literally ridiculous by jareth-0205 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Violence and child abuse is now the same as dehumanising speech?

      Probably depends on how much and how often you have to deal with it. Speech matters.

      Having to deal day-in-day-out with the conspiracy nuts, literal nazis, threats of violence etc., after a while, little by little, that's going to change you. That's exactly what they're talking about. Since you or I haven't done that job we aren't in a good position to judge what it's like.

    2. Re:This is literally ridiculous by dabadab · · Score: 1

      Violence and child abuse is now the same as dehumanising speech?

      In the case of moderators we are not speaking about actual violence but images / descriptions of violence and child abuse, and yes, that may be on the same level as dehumanising speech.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    3. Re:This is literally ridiculous by Stan92057 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Never ceases to amaze me how some people think that because its said on the internet words don't hurt, that its not real..somehow.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    4. Re:This is literally ridiculous by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Never ceases to amaze me how some people think that because its said on the internet words don't hurt, that its not real..somehow.

      Just because it hurts and is real doesn't make it the same as violence and child abuse.

      When you compare speech to child abuse, you're trivialising child abuse.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    5. Re:This is literally ridiculous by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Violence and child abuse is now the same as dehumanising speech?

      Probably depends on how much and how often you have to deal with it. Speech matters.

      Having to deal day-in-day-out with the conspiracy nuts, literal nazis, threats of violence etc., after a while, little by little, that's going to change you. That's exactly what they're talking about. Since you or I haven't done that job we aren't in a good position to judge what it's like.

      No one claimed it wouldn't change you, but when you place speech in the same category as child abuse, you're trivialising child abuse.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    6. Re:This is literally ridiculous by taylorius · · Score: 1

      My personal view:

      Seeing child abuse images would be orders of magnitude worse than the worst hate speech you could produce. I've read no end of sweary, hateful screeds on the internet. They aren't pleasant reading, but I find I can shrug my shoulders and move on, sometimes even laugh as I imagine the spittle flecked, red faced, raging keyboard hammerer who wrote it.

      Not so with images. I've never seen any child abuse images, and I never want to. I've seen some gore / death type photos though, and those were bad enough. They lingered in my mind's eye in a way that hate speech never would.

    7. Re:This is literally ridiculous by Mattatron · · Score: 2

      Please rank all crimes for us so we don't make this mistake again. I'll wait...

    8. Re:This is literally ridiculous by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Please rank all crimes for us so we don't make this mistake again. I'll wait...

      I don't need to rank all, just the ones they want to equivocate.

      Child abuse is worse than nasty speech!

      Only twats think otherwise.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    9. Re:This is literally ridiculous by denzacar · · Score: 1

      And yet, clearly, you are getting all upset, stressed and emotional about mere words, about words, which are about people having to examine reported cases of suspected child abuse on a web site - i.e. a medium where said abuse is found primarily in the form of text an images.

      So... At least 5 degrees of separation and abstraction away...
      And there you are shouting, all boldface and exclamation points, that certain text is far worse than other text... because text can't be in the same category as text.

      Hmm...
      Something tells me that you should not apply for that moderator position at Cognizant.
      Regardless of the ease of access to weed and the lactation room, when needed.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    10. Re:This is literally ridiculous by Stan92057 · · Score: 1, Informative

      You do know that you can destroy a child with words right...Your fucking useless,you will never be any good to anyone your fucking stupid i hate you go away i don't have time...words hurt just as much as the belt, even more so it scars kids for life..verbal abuse of a child IS CHILD ABUSE moron.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    11. Re:This is literally ridiculous by Immerman · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about child abuse in this context though - they're talking about looking at images and discussions of it. Speech about child abuse. That's a pretty serious difference, it's not like the moderator is going to suffer the trauma of the abuse that they're seeing and reading about. (presumably anyone who suffered such a thing themselves so that past traumas would be invoked would stay far away from such a job)

      Do you really think reading someone's post about raping children is going to be dramatically more traumatic than reading someone's post about murdering black people?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:This is literally ridiculous by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And you're continuing to miss the point. In this context, the mental health of the moderators, there is no child abuse. There is only discussions and images of child abuse. Really sucks for the kid (assuming there's an actual kid involved), but they're outside the scope of this discussion

      Moderators may be traumatized by looking at such images and reading such posts, but it will not be anything remotely like actually suffering such abuse themselves.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:This is literally ridiculous by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      When you compare speech to child abuse, you're trivialising child abuse.
      A good deal of child abuse is speech ...

      And there is nothing trivial about abuse/harassing by speech.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:This is literally ridiculous by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing we have freedom of speech to protect ourselves against fascists like you.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    15. Re:This is literally ridiculous by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wow, no one ever called me a fascists.

      Hint you can google what the term actually means.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:This is literally ridiculous by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Well, how does it feel to be on the same side with fascists? Who seeks oppression rather than freedom of speech? There's only ONE side doing that in politics today. When you suppress free speech with violence, you are not fighting fascism - you are the fascist!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    17. Re:This is literally ridiculous by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      When you suppress free speech with violence, you are not fighting fascism - you are the fascist!
      You seem to mix me up with someone.

      I'm a democrate not a fascist.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:This is literally ridiculous by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You judge people by their actions, not by their words. You behave like a fascist, you ARE a fascist, no matter what identity you tell the world you have. Shutting down free speech is fascist, end of story.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  10. Re:If you can't handle deleting pepe memes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's more deleting gore images. How many ripped open humans do you like to look at in the morning? When you're poor, you take any job you can. Only so many people can work in fast food and as cashiers.

  11. What are they watching? by grumbel · · Score: 2, Funny

    This doesn't really add up. There are around 4500-7500 moderators on Facebook and while there is a lot of terrible stuff on the Internet, most of it could be automatically filtered away by content-id after first identifying it. Furthermore most users wouldn't even be stupid enough to post that stuff on Facebook in the first place, since that gets your account blocked and there are more appropriate places for it on the Internet. I doubt that leaves enough content to damage thousands of moderators.

    1. Re:What are they watching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "most users wouldn't even be stupid enough to post that stuff on Facebook in the first place"

      You vastly overestimate the intelligence of your fellow man.

      Pizzagate raged for months, Qanon is still going strong. A significant population of the US is dumb enough to believe that nonsense - and post repeatedly about it every day. And that's just the US nutters. Facebook reported 2,200,000,000 active monthly users globally in 2018. It has repeatedly been acknowledged that the number of moderators is insufficient to filter the existing content.

  12. moderator threaths by sad_ · · Score: 1

    How do those facebook moderators get the details of the Cognizant workers that they are able to track them down and threathen them?
    At least hide the identities so they don't need to worry about what crazy people might do to them for reviewing their posts.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:moderator threaths by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Facebook require real names? That, paired with the Cognizant corporate employee directory should be enough to ID the moderator.

    2. Re:moderator threaths by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well, for a start they all sit in the same office.

      I suspect they also get performance ratings based on whether their moderations get overturned, and that gives them tremendous incentive to avoid that happening.

      I can easily believe that the meta-moderator is expected to provide a written reason for overruling, and you'd soon learn who writes in which styles.

  13. Anyone else concerned? by derbyb · · Score: 1

    If Facebook were really concerned about moderation and the people that perform the work, wouldn't they want those people and that skillset to be part of the company and not outsourced? Just another tech company that only values sales and engineering.

  14. So, is this a recruitment drive for Facebook ... by Rip!ey · · Score: 1

    So, is this a recruitment drive for Facebook hidden behind a Slashdot submission or something?

    Drugs and sex on the job? Sign me up.

  15. Re: So a nomral average 20something life by topology · · Score: 1

    You say a job with no skills, but being able to look at all that shit and compartmentalize it so it doesn't affect you is a necessary skill for this job. The problem is that they are not getting trained in the mental skills needed. Mirror neurons don't make a distinction between what we see and what we do. This affects everyone who gets exposed to that quantity of crap. The brain shifts its baseline for "normal" based on its environmental exposure. Unless the company is facilitating high quality positive experiences, the baseline for normal/healthy/sane is shifting subconsciously in the minds of the moderators.

  16. High turnover rate comes with the job by Pimpy · · Score: 1

    It would seem rather obvious that a high turnover rate would be expected with this kind of work. As people continue to be exposed to this kind of material, one would imagine that 1) most people would begin to suffer mental and psychological trauma, and 2) a subset of people would actually enjoy it. The salary is perhaps less of an issue than the costs associated with the mental health care costs that those in the first group are likely to incur - or as in this case, the impact of self-mediciation spilling into the workplace. Given these aspects, it's also perhaps not surprising that they are all contractors, and can be routinely swapped out.

  17. Re: good thing they don't read creimer ebooks by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You should ensure that the fire exits are blocked and locked before you open the container of mustard gas. Trust me on that one, else you'll end up with almost a month of preparation and only a paltry body count to show for it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Only if you can afford to fire people by gotan · · Score: 1

    ... there may just not be enough people that are qualified and willing to do the job, so they make do with what they get.

    Maybe there are no "right" people for the job, or at least not enough that are also willing to do it.

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  19. Moderation is the wrong solution by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    Consider a small, isolated community: If someone acts like a jackass, they will be socially shunned. If they persist in acting like a jackass, someone bigger and meaner will take them out behind the shed and "learn 'em". If they still persist, they will ultimately be run out of town.

    In more civilized climes, the community hands over some of this responsibility to the government. There are laws about stalking harrassment, and the like. Ultimately, the punishments aren't all that different.

    The problem in public, online communities is the lack of hard-and-fast identity, so that punishments can be applied. Sure, an account gets banned - but the person just makes another account. There's no "shed", and no real way to run the perp out of town. Moderation becomes nothing but a gigantic game of whac-a-mole - it's almost completely pointless.

    It seems to me that part of the solution is to regain those small communities, by making online communities mostly private. Participants have to be invited; which means that they can easily be permanently disinvited. Just creating a new account won't garner an invitation to join.

    Taking Facebook as the example (since it's the subject of TFA): Why should any profile be open to public comments? Let a profile show enough information for people to find you. But any interaction - posting or whatever - should require an explicit invitation. No invite for the asshat, and the person will never know they exist. And if you're a member of a group where people are saying bad things? Leave, problem solved.

    If some asshat wants to post unpleasant stuff, they are absolutely free to do so - on their own profile, where only the people they invite will ever see it. It won't bother anyone else. But, but...what if they post something I don't like? Waaah!

    - Fake news? Unpopular opinions? Let the invite-only groups entertain themselves. It's no one's business, and any intervention is really just censorship. Stupid people exist, and who knows, maybe we're actually the stupid ones. Maybe it really is turtles all the way down.

    - Illegal material? Call the police, that's why they exist. Don't moderate - that's evidence tampering. Do what the police request, whether that's deleting the material, or leaving it up as evidence.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Moderation is the wrong solution by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The problem in public, online communities is the lack of hard-and-fast identity, so that punishments can be applied. Sure, an account gets banned - but the person just makes another account. There's no "shed", and no real way to run the perp out of town. Moderation becomes nothing but a gigantic game of whac-a-mole - it's almost completely pointless.

      This was the problem I (and a bunch of other users) faced when I attracted the attention of a cyber-stalker on Twitter a few years back. She was convinced that I was the same person as another guy she had a beef with. Her proof? We both liked taking photos so we were obviously the same guy. (Apparently, all those photos posted online only come from one person - me. It keeps me really busy.) Oh, and god told her. She literally thought that god talked to her and told her about "crimes" I committed. There was no arguing with her - how do you counter "god told me"??? - so I didn't try. Instead, I and the others she would harass would report her account. Twitter would ban it, but she'd have two or three (sometimes more) accounts lying dormant ready for this and would bounce over to the new account and pick the harassment back up. She lived in another country so legal options were minimal. It was just a game of whack-a-mole until she lost interest in me and moved on to another victim. (She's still out there harassing people last I checked.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  20. In other words... by acoustix · · Score: 1

    ...they're just like the rest of us.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  21. Shit Posting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Look, a bunch of people who review comments on facebook talk about their corporate culture with the Verve. Sounds like they were just shit posting. I work in HR, ego I am ACing the shit out of this. Trust me. If this was really as rampant as they say, people would have crawled all up our ass. I have one guy who is banging his employee on the DL, outside of work and they are discrete. Yet everyone on the floor knows because we, as human beings, are nosey as shit. There is no way that it is as rampant in a large team as that and they don't have HUGE employee relations issues that filter to lawsuits and EEOC claims. Sounds like bunk to me. Now, if you excuse me, I need to tell said manager to stop fucking the help.

  22. Re:If you can't handle deleting pepe memes by cordovaCon83 · · Score: 1

    The only person making 28k a year at Wendy's is the owner. People have babies to feed already. Have you been into the bathroom at some of these Wendy's? Watching decapitation videos for forty hours a week might be easier on the psyche than scraping doo-doo butter off the walls twice a day.

  23. Re: good thing they don't read creimer ebooks by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but you're going to end up dead or permanently imprisoned at the end of it anyway, so why get cheap?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  24. Crunching the profit numbers by clawsoon · · Score: 1

    $6.9 billion in profits divided by 30,000 employees working on safety and security = $230,000 in profit per person in that division.

    That math may be incorrect if contract content moderators aren't included in the 30,000 employees, and I'd be happy to have more accurate numbers. Still, it's clear where the profits are coming from: Investors are making money off of the fact that there are people desperate enough for a job that they're willing to do this job for shit wages.

  25. Crazy posts seen on facebook by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    The UFOs are real! The government knows and keeps quiet! Men in Black come and make people who know too much disappear!!!

    For moderator: if you're female and frustrated, text me on 1-212-555-1234 for a good time!

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  26. Easy to forget for most of us by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    We are used to professional level environments but at this income level this is more like restaurant or call center level crowd and these are probably mostly young people like those jobs. Their managers are probably parents as much as bosses.

    This all sounds pretty similar to earlier in life when I worked in those kinds of environments. It's less people having sex and using drugs to cope with work than just people having sex and using drugs because sex and drugs are a great way to pass the time with coping as an excuse.

  27. Re:Where do I sign up? by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    The $29k/yr

  28. Is this a perquisite? by Gonzodoggy · · Score: 1

    Are the sex and drugs provided or reimbursed?

    Asking for a friend

  29. Re: Moderation is just local censorship. by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Extending free speech to publicly accessible places on the internet like it is in the real world would just about do it.

    There is the same amount of free speech in the real world. The person watching porn at Starbucks is going to be asked to leave or forcibly removed for trespassing if they don't comply.

  30. But... by doom · · Score: 1

    But I'm sure the job has other perks as well.

  31. Facebook Employees' Are Routinely High... by edi_guy · · Score: 1

    Couldn't you just replace "Moderators" with "Employees" and still have a valid statement. My guess is a good fraction of that company is high and mentally distressed.

  32. Pushback from Facebook Members by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    And Facebook is NEVER to blame for all the ads they push onto member newsfeeds without their consent? I absolutely despise those intrusions and I do everything to make the moderators' job as miserable as possible by vigorously reporting the ads, especially the scams like junk health treatments. Advertising storage units? Reported as "s3xually inappropriate". Restaurants? Reported as "political issue". Entertainment? Reported as "prohibited content". And yes I exclude as much personal info as possible from my profile so that FB can't exploit it for targeted marketing.

    I don't like unsolicited ads consuming my internet monthly usage. Get in my way, and I will dish it right back where it hurts. My Facebook friends picked up on the tactic.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  33. Sounds like your average service industry job by Matheus · · Score: 1

    I mean really.. this is textbook for your average restaurant. I'd say the job responsibilities of surfing the type of content would encourage more action (read porn all day, have more sex in the office; read hate speech all day have anger issues; read conspiracies and fake news all day develop more of a broken perception of the world) but honestly.. all of those levels are so high in a kitchen we're talking about shades of grey here!

  34. Re:Moderation is just local censorship. by ezdiy · · Score: 1

    I've experimented with subjective moderation in a small forum community (~2000 DAU), back in the day of yore before facebook, when web forums were more relevant.

    The "split" idea doesn't work work well for "average "joe" user because of choice paradox - the leeway *confuses* them. Such folks on average hate choices, thats why there are 3 variants of product, not 50.

    Thats why a moderator is somehow elected and trusted to make decisions instead, and even tolerated for a bit when he's a bad shepherd.

    Formally, we're talking mastrer/slave psychology in leadership and anthrophology. Basically respecting authority is convenient, and only when the (self)appointed authority exhibits egregious levels of operator abuse, replacement will be sought. Reminder that boiling frog and all other personal-social dynamics still apply.

    This is also why representative democracy, instead of everyone just choosing their personal representative out of local politicians as their personal president. The latter is utter chaos unless elaborate bottom-up governance culture is build from the start, as seen in various models of social anarchy with strong emphasis on mentor/protege pairing (higher cognitive load), instead of "slaves" band wagoning fiat "slaver" authority we're naturally wired to do - it's simple to use lizard brain for this, but it scales poorly to large social groups.

  35. What about here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure people just disagreeing with global warming is enough to send Slashdot mods into suicidal nihilistic hedonism.

  36. Re:Not a job for human's by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    I do not think Vial means what you think it means.

  37. I cannot imagine by notaspy · · Score: 1

    moderating while not thoroughly baked.

    [insert *anything* for 'moderating'.]

    --
    hi!
  38. How's life in the hypocrite lane?

  39. Pay me. by singingjim1 · · Score: 1

    So does thinking this is a job I would actually like to do automatically disqualify me from doing it?

  40. Re: So a nomral average 20something life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just becus you may browse child abuse on your own does not mean that everyone else dose or that would be considered a normal browsing habit for a 20-25 year old.

    This, this is the kind of pwnage I read Slashdot for. Simply awesome.