3 ms·
>"Although most of the moderators work for third-party firms, the growth in their numbers has already had an impact on the firms’ finances." I was kind of surp
by bogomipz 8y ago
>"Although most of the moderators work for third-party firms, the growth in their numbers has already had an impact on the firms’ finances."
I was kind of surprised to read this. Wouldn't content policy be much more coherent if these were employees of the company? I'm curious why they elected to use third-party firms. I understand that localization is an issue but this a global company with deep resources so I'm doubting that could be it.
- mayniac 8y agoMaybe it's easier for them to increase manpower temporarily if it's outsourced? i.e. there's probably going to be more need to moderate Facebook in the run up to the midterms this November, and even more so with actual elections. There's probably a lot of factors that go into determining how many people are needed to moderate and it could be easier/cheaper to hand over staffing to third party firms. That and as you mentioned, localisation.
- gaius 8y agoI'm curious why they elected to use third-party firms. Plausible deniability, and no liability for the long term effects on the mental health of those exposed to extreme imagery. Knowing these companies almost certainly a tax dodge of some sort is involved too.
- bogomipz 8y agoSure plausible deniability sounds about right for these folks. However I would hope that the mileage on that is limited to single use. I'm sure they will use this excuse to point blame elsewhere during their next crisis but I doubt it will work for the one after that.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoWhat if they found the "creative" solution to delegate the policing to the governments in question (as a "third party"), in exchange for not having to pay taxes. Then deniability goes both ways!