8 ms·

What do other companies do with people who have to evaluate content like this?

by serge2k 10y ago

mcphilip 10y ago
Some outsource the problem: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/ https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/
- bbcbasic 10y ago
  Sad, but unsurprising.
danso 10y ago
Verge had a pretty good longform article on it: http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11387934/internet-moderator-history-youtube-facebook-reddit-censorship-free-speech http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11387934/internet-moderato... edit: Sorry, it's an article about how other companies do content moderation, but not a huge focus on how they accommodate the workers who do it.
belltaco 10y ago
http://gizmodo.com/5936572/the-worst-job-at-google-a-year-of-watching-beastiality-child-pornography-and-other-terrible-internet-things http://gizmodo.com/5936572/the-worst-job-at-google-a-year-of... http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/tech-confessional-the-googler-who-looks-at-the-wo http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/tech-confessional-the-googler...
ZenoArrow 10y ago
It's a problem for multiple companies. Some seem to offer counselling. I think the YouTube approach of only offering yearlong contracts is probably a sensible one, though you'd hope there would be some sort of support programme for ex-employees also: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/technology/19screen.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/technology/19screen.html "Flagged videos are then sent for manual review by YouTube-employed content moderators who, because of the nature of the work, are given only yearlong contracts and access to counseling services, according to Victoria Grand, a YouTube spokeswoman." Also, I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion but, it's this kind of problem that puts forward the strongest case for increased online surveillance. I understand it's unfair that everyone will be punished for the actions of a few, but I'd rather be under surveillance than have more damage to the personal lives of these content moderators. Maybe we just aren't yet mature enough as a species for the fully open web we used to have.
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  I agree with your final statement, in that this is the sort of awful behavior that adds credence to calls for surveillance, or at least private censorship. I wouldn't say this fully justifies for that sort of control, but it certainly makes them sound legitimate. How did society deal with these actions before the internet? I don't know what the solution to this will be. Probably a perpetual cat-and-mouse game of image processing algorithms trying to spot graphic/illegal content and black hats finding more and more novel and sophisticated ways to defeat those programs.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    I think you're asking the right questions. I don't know how society dealt with these actions before the Internet, but I suspect the scale of the problem wasn't the same before the Internet. It probably wasn't so easy before to distribute morally-bankrupt content without catching the attention of law enforcement. The long term solution has to revolve around education and re-examining societal values (the darker side of human behaviour has its roots in more socially accepted forms of human activity). The short to medium term solution is to target those producing and consuming the content, but this is fraught with its own difficulties. In any case, targetted surveillance and streamlining the related court cases is something we should probably be doing more of for now.
    - forgottenpass 10y ago
      For the sake of argument, I'd like to talk about legal-but-disturbing images to make one narrow point without getting bogged down with all the other contributing factors... re-examining societal values (the darker side of human behaviour has its roots in more socially accepted forms of human activity) No matter what societal values are, the minor person-to-person variance will always produce a distribution curve of personal standards clumped around society's "normal". Which means there will always be a small number of people willing to view and send around content that is two standard deviations more "graphic" than what is acceptable in society at large. It doesn't matter what the absolute value of 2σ is tomorrow. It will be just as offputting as 2σ content is today.

What do other companies do with people who have to evaluate content like this?

by serge2k 10y ago

What do other companies do with people who have to evaluate content like this?

Some outsource the problem: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/ https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/

bbcbasic 10y ago
Sad, but unsurprising.

danso 10y ago

Verge had a pretty good longform article on it: http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11387934/internet-moderator-history-youtube-facebook-reddit-censorship-free-speech http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11387934/internet-moderato... edit: Sorry, it's an article about how other companies do content moderation, but not a huge focus on how they accommodate the workers who do it.

belltaco 10y ago

http://gizmodo.com/5936572/the-worst-job-at-google-a-year-of-watching-beastiality-child-pornography-and-other-terrible-internet-things http://gizmodo.com/5936572/the-worst-job-at-google-a-year-of... http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/tech-confessional-the-googler-who-looks-at-the-wo http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/tech-confessional-the-googler...

ZenoArrow 10y ago

It's a problem for multiple companies. Some seem to offer counselling. I think the YouTube approach of only offering yearlong contracts is probably a sensible one, though you'd hope there would be some sort of support programme for ex-employees also: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/technology/19screen.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/technology/19screen.html "Flagged videos are then sent for manual review by YouTube-employed content moderators who, because of the nature of the work, are given only yearlong contracts and access to counseling services, according to Victoria Grand, a YouTube spokeswoman." Also, I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion but, it's this kind of problem that puts forward the strongest case for increased online surveillance. I understand it's unfair that everyone will be punished for the actions of a few, but I'd rather be under surveillance than have more damage to the personal lives of these content moderators. Maybe we just aren't yet mature enough as a species for the fully open web we used to have.

Apocryphon 10y ago
I agree with your final statement, in that this is the sort of awful behavior that adds credence to calls for surveillance, or at least private censorship. I wouldn't say this fully justifies for that sort of control, but it certainly makes them sound legitimate. How did society deal with these actions before the internet? I don't know what the solution to this will be. Probably a perpetual cat-and-mouse game of image processing algorithms trying to spot graphic/illegal content and black hats finding more and more novel and sophisticated ways to defeat those programs.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I think you're asking the right questions. I don't know how society dealt with these actions before the Internet, but I suspect the scale of the problem wasn't the same before the Internet. It probably wasn't so easy before to distribute morally-bankrupt content without catching the attention of law enforcement. The long term solution has to revolve around education and re-examining societal values (the darker side of human behaviour has its roots in more socially accepted forms of human activity). The short to medium term solution is to target those producing and consuming the content, but this is fraught with its own difficulties. In any case, targetted surveillance and streamlining the related court cases is something we should probably be doing more of for now.
  - forgottenpass 10y ago
    For the sake of argument, I'd like to talk about legal-but-disturbing images to make one narrow point without getting bogged down with all the other contributing factors... re-examining societal values (the darker side of human behaviour has its roots in more socially accepted forms of human activity) No matter what societal values are, the minor person-to-person variance will always produce a distribution curve of personal standards clumped around society's "normal". Which means there will always be a small number of people willing to view and send around content that is two standard deviations more "graphic" than what is acceptable in society at large. It doesn't matter what the absolute value of 2σ is tomorrow. It will be just as offputting as 2σ content is today.