4 ms·

I don't mean to be mean and I support the plight of the moderators but this is just simple supply and demand. What are the skill required to be a moderator: ey

I don't mean to be mean and I support the plight of the moderators but this is just simple supply and demand. What are the skill required to be a moderator: eyesight and motor functions. Who has those skills: almost everyone. What will the companies therefore pay: almost nothing. I think the best thing that can happen to those jobs are they they are automated out of existence with AI, or heavily reduced,

helmholtz 6y ago
You don't mean to be mean, but then follow it up with such a tasteless and repugnant comment. God help those in your life if this really is your attitude towards living, breathing humans.
- spurgu 6y ago
  Next level: It's actually the AI defending itself.
  - bentcorner 6y ago
    More realistically, the AI promotes content that improves itself and buries content that makes itself weaker.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- baxtr 6y ago
  Your reply can be categorized as “ad hominem” I believe?
  - esja 6y ago
    Quite close but generally ad hominem would be: "You are an awful person and therefore your argument is wrong". The second piece is missing here.
    - baxtr 6y ago
      Ah, so the therefore part is missing then. Thanks for the clarification!
      - esja 6y ago
        You're welcome! It's possible you were right, if we can interpret the "attack" as being purely intended to undermine the original argument. I just didn't personally interpret it that way... it looked more like a side-observation to me, something like "name-calling" under Paul Graham's categorisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graha...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gmadsen 6y ago
not everything is supply and demand. we have a "mostly" 40 hour work week, not because that is what is needed for demand, but it is enforced by labor laws. I see no reason why there can't be a mandate to provide mental health benefits to these workers. It is absolutely a safety hazard.
- erulabs 6y ago
  This might border on useless, but to me, if the workers for the most part "demand" a 40 hour work week, and for the most part "demand" over-time pay, etc, this isn't a breakdown in supply and demand. Anarcho-capitalists should support workers demanding things - they just should also support scabs working anyways. Supply and demand applies to labor - if the labor does not supply itself - it creates demand for better conditions! The most tautological comment I may ever post!
  - croon 6y ago
    While your logic is correct, it is ignoring another argument. Individual workers might not price in the societal (or individual) cost 20 years from now of breeding mental issues in these workers now. Or another example: You own 50% of the forest land in your community, which for sake of argument produces 50% of the community's oxygen (assuming a closed system). You start cutting down the trees to produce furniture and sell them. Generally the cost of oxygen production is not priced in, and down the line, someone will pay for it. Either individuals getting sick, universal health care, environmental efforts in replanting, regulation on land maintenance, etc, etc. I suppose you will argue that each individual will need to save a buffer for every network effect for every purchase decision they ever make that doesn't price in externalities, in pure capitalist spirit. But I hope my point hits that there has never existed such a system, or if it did, it died out pretty quickly, and left no trace in history. We can and should all have opinions on health regulation, environmental taxes, etc regarding what their effect ultimately becomes, but everything from societal mental health to environmental effects will always leave a bill, and someone will pay for it. The only thing we can discuss is if it should be everyone for themselves, our great great grandchildren, taxes, or corporations selling crap too cheap (or in OPs case for free).
joshxyz 6y ago
Lol not everyone is built with the mental and emotional capacity to not be scarred in that type of job. Sure, they can switch jobs, but it's pretty much like having an employee do welding work without protective glasses. Guaranteed consequences for them in the long run.
- pavel_lishin 6y ago
  I would argue that no-one is - the welding goggles analogy is a very apt one. Nobody's born able to withstand straight high-energy ultraviolet.
  - kukx 6y ago
    Or is it really? I am honestly curious what are the arguments? I can find one to the opposite, like humans did not evolve in the arc welding environment, while the cruelty was not unknown to our ancestors. I would expect that there are many people well equipped to deal with the latter.
  - drusepth 6y ago
    Yeah, I'd agree that no-one is, which is exactly why I also think this kind of job should be automated away -- to spare the real humans from having to deal with emotional cancer. I spent ~6 months working on tech to detect potentially-suicidal people online (which required a lot of manual flagging and review) and it's one of the most emotionally draining jobs I've ever done. It's a weird feeling to think it's an incredibly important job, but not want to recommend anyone ever do it -- that seems like a perfect role for automation to slip in.
    - pavel_lishin 6y ago
      > that seems like a perfect role for automation to slip in. I have no faith in AI to handle nuance like this: https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/28/gpt3_medical_chatbot_experiment/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/28/gpt3_medical_chatbot_...

helmholtz 6y ago

You don't mean to be mean, but then follow it up with such a tasteless and repugnant comment. God help those in your life if this really is your attitude towards living, breathing humans.

spurgu 6y ago
Next level: It's actually the AI defending itself.
- bentcorner 6y ago
  More realistically, the AI promotes content that improves itself and buries content that makes itself weaker.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
baxtr 6y ago
Your reply can be categorized as “ad hominem” I believe?
- esja 6y ago
  Quite close but generally ad hominem would be: "You are an awful person and therefore your argument is wrong". The second piece is missing here.
  - baxtr 6y ago
    Ah, so the therefore part is missing then. Thanks for the clarification!
    - esja 6y ago
      You're welcome! It's possible you were right, if we can interpret the "attack" as being purely intended to undermine the original argument. I just didn't personally interpret it that way... it looked more like a side-observation to me, something like "name-calling" under Paul Graham's categorisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graha...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gmadsen 6y ago

not everything is supply and demand. we have a "mostly" 40 hour work week, not because that is what is needed for demand, but it is enforced by labor laws. I see no reason why there can't be a mandate to provide mental health benefits to these workers. It is absolutely a safety hazard.

erulabs 6y ago
This might border on useless, but to me, if the workers for the most part "demand" a 40 hour work week, and for the most part "demand" over-time pay, etc, this isn't a breakdown in supply and demand. Anarcho-capitalists should support workers demanding things - they just should also support scabs working anyways. Supply and demand applies to labor - if the labor does not supply itself - it creates demand for better conditions! The most tautological comment I may ever post!
- croon 6y ago
  While your logic is correct, it is ignoring another argument. Individual workers might not price in the societal (or individual) cost 20 years from now of breeding mental issues in these workers now. Or another example: You own 50% of the forest land in your community, which for sake of argument produces 50% of the community's oxygen (assuming a closed system). You start cutting down the trees to produce furniture and sell them. Generally the cost of oxygen production is not priced in, and down the line, someone will pay for it. Either individuals getting sick, universal health care, environmental efforts in replanting, regulation on land maintenance, etc, etc. I suppose you will argue that each individual will need to save a buffer for every network effect for every purchase decision they ever make that doesn't price in externalities, in pure capitalist spirit. But I hope my point hits that there has never existed such a system, or if it did, it died out pretty quickly, and left no trace in history. We can and should all have opinions on health regulation, environmental taxes, etc regarding what their effect ultimately becomes, but everything from societal mental health to environmental effects will always leave a bill, and someone will pay for it. The only thing we can discuss is if it should be everyone for themselves, our great great grandchildren, taxes, or corporations selling crap too cheap (or in OPs case for free).

joshxyz 6y ago

Lol not everyone is built with the mental and emotional capacity to not be scarred in that type of job. Sure, they can switch jobs, but it's pretty much like having an employee do welding work without protective glasses. Guaranteed consequences for them in the long run.

pavel_lishin 6y ago
I would argue that no-one is - the welding goggles analogy is a very apt one. Nobody's born able to withstand straight high-energy ultraviolet.
- kukx 6y ago
  Or is it really? I am honestly curious what are the arguments? I can find one to the opposite, like humans did not evolve in the arc welding environment, while the cruelty was not unknown to our ancestors. I would expect that there are many people well equipped to deal with the latter.
- drusepth 6y ago
  Yeah, I'd agree that no-one is, which is exactly why I also think this kind of job should be automated away -- to spare the real humans from having to deal with emotional cancer. I spent ~6 months working on tech to detect potentially-suicidal people online (which required a lot of manual flagging and review) and it's one of the most emotionally draining jobs I've ever done. It's a weird feeling to think it's an incredibly important job, but not want to recommend anyone ever do it -- that seems like a perfect role for automation to slip in.
  - pavel_lishin 6y ago
    > that seems like a perfect role for automation to slip in. I have no faith in AI to handle nuance like this: https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/28/gpt3_medical_chatbot_experiment/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/28/gpt3_medical_chatbot_...