Considering there are actual (legal) communities around real-life "gore" I think the "had to view child abuse content" part is the less interesting one, althoug

Considering there are actual (legal) communities around real-life "gore" I think the "had to view child abuse content" part is the less interesting one, although it makes for a better headline. The import part is this: > Microsoft did not warn the workers about the dangers of this line of work and the potential for “debilitating injuries” People seeking out this content and watching it on a regular basis know what they are getting themselves into (even if it's the kind of stuff that wouldn't even fly on sites like 4chan). Regular employees of a software company might not. The moderators should have been screened, prepared and offered free counselling. If this had been the case, I would have argued that they shouldn't be able to claim damages because they knew what they were getting themselves into. As far as "they could have switched jobs" goes -- maybe that would have helped, maybe not. If some of the former moderators are suffering from actual trauma, that can be caused by a single impression. Sticking to the job may actually have been an (unhealthy) coping mechanism. Regular psychological exams might have avoided that. It's negligent. It's a horrifying job and not everyone has the mental strength (or is desensitised enough) to do it but they basically threw them in the cold water at the deep end and then just tried to CYA by saying "if you don't like it, you can do something else" -- but only when the damage had already been done.