4 ms·

I wonder what a good approach would be for jobs which need to be done, but are harmful to the people doing them? They talk about "the industry-leading wellness

I wonder what a good approach would be for jobs which need to be done, but are harmful to the people doing them? They talk about "the industry-leading wellness program and comprehensive support services we provide" - but should there be a basic standard of support set which they have to meet? I'm not sure of what a good answer would look like.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
> They talk about "the industry-leading wellness program and comprehensive support services we provide" - but should there be a basic standard of support set which they have to meet? > I'm not sure of what a good answer would look like IMO the bare minimum is credit to cover any and all inpatient/outpatient therapy with LCSW/PsyD/Clinical Psy PhD/MD health professionals, as well as a generous amount of allowance for prescribed paid leave(from a LCSW/PsyD/Clinical PhD/MD) due to distress.
untog 7y ago
I'm not sure either, but things like this: > The PTSD form describes various support services available to moderators who are suffering, including a “wellness coach,” a hotline, and the human resources department. (“The wellness coach is not a medical doctor and cannot diagnose or treat mental health disorders,” the document adds.) do not inspire confidence. They sound very much like cut-price answers to very complicated questions. I'm sure a company like Facebook could afford to give its moderators access to fully qualified mental health professionals. But hey, they could also make those moderators full employees rather than third party contract workers, and show no signs of doing that either. (not to mention, suggesting you talk to HR? The second you do that liability alarms are going to start ringing and attached to your name. Terrible idea)
Nasrudith 7y ago
The existing standard in old industry was disability and workman's comp but the lines are a bit more fuzzy than just "x-ray says you have black lung" or "you don't have a right hand anymore". The ergonomics of what could actually prevent PTSD from developing other than massive churn would be an interesting area of study period.
pgrote 7y ago
>jobs which need to be done, but are harmful to the people doing them? Does this job need to be done? Perhaps we have learned that opening a platform for anyone to upload anything in an anonymous state is not good for society. Maybe it is time to force anyone uploading to YouTube to be approved prior. All the hand wringing concerning online services and the belief they should exist since everyone seems to like them is something society has to deal with. No one is practically looking at the ill the services are doing to the world. Why should anyone get PTSD to ensure YouTube can continue to offer videos? Wow.
- toast0 7y ago
  Raising the bar on people uploading wouldn't eliminate the need for this work; at best, it would reduce it. Someone still needs to watch whatever gets uploaded, even if it's before that account is allowed to post publicly.
- samatman 7y ago
  Approved... by content moderators, perhaps? Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't solve the fundamental dilemma.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't solve the fundamental dilemma. Charging $10 or $100 per upload would kill this material stone dead. And ensure that everything could be traced to the person responsible if it did slip through.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Prescreening would massively damper speech to make it essentially Cable TV while not even solving the issue of PTSD as there would still be screeners. That isn't a solution - it is misguided spite. Second it is the price of a remotely free society - not having to ask of freedom of speech - letting the government decide what is "unacceptable for society" with speech is foregone conclusion of abuse. Besides even if it was miraculously representative society doesn't even know what is good for society! The Romans thought that their gladiatorial games were opposing decadence and that wearing pants was barbaric and worse for society than putting lead in wine.
the_snooze 7y ago
This take is a non-starter for these companies, but I'll say it: these problems come from the fact that these online services have massive reach and scale. These systems are designed to facilitate monetizing off of low-cost worldwide content creation and distribution. You get the good and the bad with that. Without changing that core goal, I feel any effort at "content moderation" is just PR lip service not actually done in good faith.
matz1 7y ago
>I wonder what a good approach would be for jobs which need to be done, but are harmful to the people doing them? So like any other job, only people who are suitable for the job should apply for the job. Not every one is harmed by gore video, thats why you select these kind of people to do the job.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

> They talk about "the industry-leading wellness program and comprehensive support services we provide" - but should there be a basic standard of support set which they have to meet? > I'm not sure of what a good answer would look like IMO the bare minimum is credit to cover any and all inpatient/outpatient therapy with LCSW/PsyD/Clinical Psy PhD/MD health professionals, as well as a generous amount of allowance for prescribed paid leave(from a LCSW/PsyD/Clinical PhD/MD) due to distress.

untog 7y ago

I'm not sure either, but things like this: > The PTSD form describes various support services available to moderators who are suffering, including a “wellness coach,” a hotline, and the human resources department. (“The wellness coach is not a medical doctor and cannot diagnose or treat mental health disorders,” the document adds.) do not inspire confidence. They sound very much like cut-price answers to very complicated questions. I'm sure a company like Facebook could afford to give its moderators access to fully qualified mental health professionals. But hey, they could also make those moderators full employees rather than third party contract workers, and show no signs of doing that either. (not to mention, suggesting you talk to HR? The second you do that liability alarms are going to start ringing and attached to your name. Terrible idea)

Nasrudith 7y ago

The existing standard in old industry was disability and workman's comp but the lines are a bit more fuzzy than just "x-ray says you have black lung" or "you don't have a right hand anymore". The ergonomics of what could actually prevent PTSD from developing other than massive churn would be an interesting area of study period.

pgrote 7y ago

>jobs which need to be done, but are harmful to the people doing them? Does this job need to be done? Perhaps we have learned that opening a platform for anyone to upload anything in an anonymous state is not good for society. Maybe it is time to force anyone uploading to YouTube to be approved prior. All the hand wringing concerning online services and the belief they should exist since everyone seems to like them is something society has to deal with. No one is practically looking at the ill the services are doing to the world. Why should anyone get PTSD to ensure YouTube can continue to offer videos? Wow.

toast0 7y ago
Raising the bar on people uploading wouldn't eliminate the need for this work; at best, it would reduce it. Someone still needs to watch whatever gets uploaded, even if it's before that account is allowed to post publicly.
samatman 7y ago
Approved... by content moderators, perhaps? Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't solve the fundamental dilemma.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Rearranging the deck chairs doesn't solve the fundamental dilemma. Charging $10 or $100 per upload would kill this material stone dead. And ensure that everything could be traced to the person responsible if it did slip through.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Prescreening would massively damper speech to make it essentially Cable TV while not even solving the issue of PTSD as there would still be screeners. That isn't a solution - it is misguided spite. Second it is the price of a remotely free society - not having to ask of freedom of speech - letting the government decide what is "unacceptable for society" with speech is foregone conclusion of abuse. Besides even if it was miraculously representative society doesn't even know what is good for society! The Romans thought that their gladiatorial games were opposing decadence and that wearing pants was barbaric and worse for society than putting lead in wine.

the_snooze 7y ago

This take is a non-starter for these companies, but I'll say it: these problems come from the fact that these online services have massive reach and scale. These systems are designed to facilitate monetizing off of low-cost worldwide content creation and distribution. You get the good and the bad with that. Without changing that core goal, I feel any effort at "content moderation" is just PR lip service not actually done in good faith.

matz1 7y ago

>I wonder what a good approach would be for jobs which need to be done, but are harmful to the people doing them? So like any other job, only people who are suitable for the job should apply for the job. Not every one is harmed by gore video, thats why you select these kind of people to do the job.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]