5 ms·

Yeah, easy yes from me too. "Oh but we won't be able to make a business out of exploiting user data and exposing hundreds of low-paid workers to psychologically

Yeah, easy yes from me too. "Oh but we won't be able to make a business out of exploiting user data and exposing hundreds of low-paid workers to psychologically damaging material anymore" right, yes, exactly, that's the point.

eyeinthepyramid 7y ago
Won't they need to have even more low-paid workers to make sure they don't publish something that violates the law?
- karatestomp 7y ago
  If they're treated like any other publisher, probably having that many workers manually vetting everything won't be viable. Which is fine, because it shouldn't be. It confuses me how every time we have one of those posts about how horrible that work is for the people doing it, most posters kinda throw up their hands and go "well whatcha gonna do" when the obvious answer is... simply not do it? If your business requires that, the easy answer to how to not cause that harm is to not have the business.
  - eyeinthepyramid 7y ago
    If the survival of their company depended on it, they would absolutely figure out a way to pre-moderate content, and almost certainly that would include significantly more low-paid moderators. They had something like $18 billion dollars in profit last year, you don't think they could afford to hire an army of moderators?
    - karatestomp 7y ago
      I reckon they can afford 150,000-200,000 more moderators, moderator-managers, workers on and managers of tools for same, et c. before that profit margin starts getting mighty thin. Is that enough? I don't know, maybe it is. How long before profit hit zero would investing in Facebook start to be considered a poor use of capital, since that's the actual tipping point? Also not sure.
d1zzy 7y ago
Then maybe you should propose and support a law that addresses that very point instead of taking a hammer to it and completely breaking any Internet forum out there, especially those that won't have the money and size to afford to deal with this.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  Rather, it seems there may be room for a law to carve out an exception for those, rather than also including a bunch of things that clearly are publishing in the exception. Meanwhile, what about mailing lists? "But those aren't (necessarily) public! What if we want to put our proceedings on a web site?" Well, luckily there's precedent for that, and the word you're looking for rather than "put" is "publish", and you can absolutely do that, but, naturally, it's publishing, just like if you were to publish a private physical mail mailing list. Either physical publishing needs to get the same protections certain kinds of web publishing have now, or we need to rethink what we've done with web publishing. Unless there's reason to believe we don't need those laws around traditional publishing anymore, the latter seems like the better idea to me.

eyeinthepyramid 7y ago

Won't they need to have even more low-paid workers to make sure they don't publish something that violates the law?

karatestomp 7y ago
If they're treated like any other publisher, probably having that many workers manually vetting everything won't be viable. Which is fine, because it shouldn't be. It confuses me how every time we have one of those posts about how horrible that work is for the people doing it, most posters kinda throw up their hands and go "well whatcha gonna do" when the obvious answer is... simply not do it? If your business requires that, the easy answer to how to not cause that harm is to not have the business.
- eyeinthepyramid 7y ago
  If the survival of their company depended on it, they would absolutely figure out a way to pre-moderate content, and almost certainly that would include significantly more low-paid moderators. They had something like $18 billion dollars in profit last year, you don't think they could afford to hire an army of moderators?
  - karatestomp 7y ago
    I reckon they can afford 150,000-200,000 more moderators, moderator-managers, workers on and managers of tools for same, et c. before that profit margin starts getting mighty thin. Is that enough? I don't know, maybe it is. How long before profit hit zero would investing in Facebook start to be considered a poor use of capital, since that's the actual tipping point? Also not sure.

d1zzy 7y ago

Then maybe you should propose and support a law that addresses that very point instead of taking a hammer to it and completely breaking any Internet forum out there, especially those that won't have the money and size to afford to deal with this.

karatestomp 7y ago
Rather, it seems there may be room for a law to carve out an exception for those, rather than also including a bunch of things that clearly are publishing in the exception. Meanwhile, what about mailing lists? "But those aren't (necessarily) public! What if we want to put our proceedings on a web site?" Well, luckily there's precedent for that, and the word you're looking for rather than "put" is "publish", and you can absolutely do that, but, naturally, it's publishing, just like if you were to publish a private physical mail mailing list. Either physical publishing needs to get the same protections certain kinds of web publishing have now, or we need to rethink what we've done with web publishing. Unless there's reason to believe we don't need those laws around traditional publishing anymore, the latter seems like the better idea to me.