4 ms·

Facebook moderator: ‘Every day was a nightmare’

42 points by alexrustic 5y ago

commandlinefan 5y ago
Why in the world would anybody (still) load this stuff up onto facebook of all places? They must know by now it's going to be deleted before anybody can see it. I would have expected a Facebook moderator's job to be more like a TSA screener: you'd spend all day looking for something that never appears.
- jazu 5y ago
  People who enjoy that kind of content are not right in the head. Don’t expect them to make rational decisions.
- DeusExMachina 5y ago
  Is It though? I would imagine that there is some marginal utility if it's done in such volumes. I get the occasional friend request from profiles with links to porn sites. Even if I report it, the fact that I saw it implies others might have seen it already and more will see it before Facebook removes it.
- Out_of_Characte 5y ago
  Because using big platforms works, even if its caught and removed fast. the christchurch shooting was livestreamed on facebook. The goal was already accomplished by the time it was taken down. Setting up new accounts on any platform is also a cost/benefit scenario. Generally, a very low bar is used and catching spammers/TOS-violations is probability driven. anything with low visibility that violates TOS (and escapes the brutal filters nowadays) isn't caught until someone somewhere sees it and makes the first report. Example: https://gizmodo.com/youtube-won-t-ban-a-guy-who-crushes-animals-to-death-1763178702 https://gizmodo.com/youtube-won-t-ban-a-guy-who-crushes-anim...
o_p 5y ago
Sounds like a good job for psychos
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Why would anyone choose this job? What am I missing? If you’re absolutely desperate, what about working at a fast food restaurant?
- throwaways885 5y ago
  I suspect a lot of these job listings are disguised as generic office work, and you don't know what you're in for until it's too late (NDA, job started, etc...)
- overlordalex 5y ago
  Off the top of my head: - This can be done from home. - It can be done by individuals with mobility issues, or other conditions preventing them from leaving home - Ability to have a flexible schedule (not sure how FB handles this, but I can see the work being done ad-hoc)
  - wayneftw 5y ago
    The article says it cannot be done from home. FB requires these moderators to work in the office. It's probably done to prevent them from sharing what they see with other members of their household, just like the NDA they have to sign.
    - overlordalex 5y ago
      In this case it seems to specifically be the contractor, whereas Facebook allows it. I agree it's not a good reason for this article, but explains why some might choose this type of work over working the grill at maccas > Isabella claims she was not allowed to work from home, unlike her counterparts who were employed directly by Facebook who did the same job.
- stagger87 5y ago
  Money? Just like any other job. It pays better than fast food.
- robjan 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
clarge1120 5y ago
I have been following this story for years, even before Google bought Youtube. It is hard to imagine a solution. This is such a hard problem to sort out. On one hand, Facebook and other social media, are predicated on the ability for the public to share content. On the other hand, there are people sharing traumatizing content which cannot be filtered using machines only. Some of this content is so horrific that it must not be described. What can Facebook or Youtube do besides hire people to filter the content? Should they curate people, allowing only approved people to share content? Who, then, is allowed to be approved? Who does the approving? How are they approved? It is opening a Pandora's box for FB and YT to even talk about this. So, they make empty statements and move on. Anything beyond tackling this head on will be seen as criminal.
mLuby 5y ago
Some Facebook moderators are asked to sign a disclaimer before starting work, accepting that the content seen in their jobs could lead to poor mental health and PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). An example of the contract, read out in the committee said: “I understand that exposure to this content may give me post traumatic stress disorder. "I will engage in a mandatory wellness coaching session but I understand that those are not conditions and may not be sufficient to prevent my contracting PTSD.” Does this kind of waiver exist for physical harm? Something like "as a factory worker, I will follow safety protocols but I understand that they may not be sufficient to prevent loss of life or limb.”
- juancn 5y ago
  It’s usually implied, think: policemen, firemen, soldiers, window cleaners on buildings, steel workers, etc. Some jobs are inherently risky to your physical and/or mental health.
mrvenkman 5y ago
Facebook should be more honest. Having the employee sign a non-disclosure agreement is disgraceful. These people are literally watching abuse and violence to make Facebook more money. Update: I have just deleted my account. I decided that the fact that some people have to be miserable for me to use Facebook just isn't worth it.

42 points by alexrustic 5y ago

Why in the world would anybody (still) load this stuff up onto facebook of all places? They must know by now it's going to be deleted before anybody can see it. I would have expected a Facebook moderator's job to be more like a TSA screener: you'd spend all day looking for something that never appears.

jazu 5y ago
People who enjoy that kind of content are not right in the head. Don’t expect them to make rational decisions.
DeusExMachina 5y ago
Is It though? I would imagine that there is some marginal utility if it's done in such volumes. I get the occasional friend request from profiles with links to porn sites. Even if I report it, the fact that I saw it implies others might have seen it already and more will see it before Facebook removes it.
Out_of_Characte 5y ago
Because using big platforms works, even if its caught and removed fast. the christchurch shooting was livestreamed on facebook. The goal was already accomplished by the time it was taken down. Setting up new accounts on any platform is also a cost/benefit scenario. Generally, a very low bar is used and catching spammers/TOS-violations is probability driven. anything with low visibility that violates TOS (and escapes the brutal filters nowadays) isn't caught until someone somewhere sees it and makes the first report. Example: https://gizmodo.com/youtube-won-t-ban-a-guy-who-crushes-animals-to-death-1763178702 https://gizmodo.com/youtube-won-t-ban-a-guy-who-crushes-anim...

o_p 5y ago

Sounds like a good job for psychos

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

Why would anyone choose this job? What am I missing? If you’re absolutely desperate, what about working at a fast food restaurant?

throwaways885 5y ago
I suspect a lot of these job listings are disguised as generic office work, and you don't know what you're in for until it's too late (NDA, job started, etc...)
overlordalex 5y ago
Off the top of my head: - This can be done from home. - It can be done by individuals with mobility issues, or other conditions preventing them from leaving home - Ability to have a flexible schedule (not sure how FB handles this, but I can see the work being done ad-hoc)
- wayneftw 5y ago
  The article says it cannot be done from home. FB requires these moderators to work in the office. It's probably done to prevent them from sharing what they see with other members of their household, just like the NDA they have to sign.
  - overlordalex 5y ago
    In this case it seems to specifically be the contractor, whereas Facebook allows it. I agree it's not a good reason for this article, but explains why some might choose this type of work over working the grill at maccas > Isabella claims she was not allowed to work from home, unlike her counterparts who were employed directly by Facebook who did the same job.
stagger87 5y ago
Money? Just like any other job. It pays better than fast food.
robjan 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

clarge1120 5y ago

I have been following this story for years, even before Google bought Youtube. It is hard to imagine a solution. This is such a hard problem to sort out. On one hand, Facebook and other social media, are predicated on the ability for the public to share content. On the other hand, there are people sharing traumatizing content which cannot be filtered using machines only. Some of this content is so horrific that it must not be described. What can Facebook or Youtube do besides hire people to filter the content? Should they curate people, allowing only approved people to share content? Who, then, is allowed to be approved? Who does the approving? How are they approved? It is opening a Pandora's box for FB and YT to even talk about this. So, they make empty statements and move on. Anything beyond tackling this head on will be seen as criminal.

mLuby 5y ago

Some Facebook moderators are asked to sign a disclaimer before starting work, accepting that the content seen in their jobs could lead to poor mental health and PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). An example of the contract, read out in the committee said: “I understand that exposure to this content may give me post traumatic stress disorder. "I will engage in a mandatory wellness coaching session but I understand that those are not conditions and may not be sufficient to prevent my contracting PTSD.” Does this kind of waiver exist for physical harm? Something like "as a factory worker, I will follow safety protocols but I understand that they may not be sufficient to prevent loss of life or limb.”

juancn 5y ago
It’s usually implied, think: policemen, firemen, soldiers, window cleaners on buildings, steel workers, etc. Some jobs are inherently risky to your physical and/or mental health.

mrvenkman 5y ago

Facebook should be more honest. Having the employee sign a non-disclosure agreement is disgraceful. These people are literally watching abuse and violence to make Facebook more money. Update: I have just deleted my account. I decided that the fact that some people have to be miserable for me to use Facebook just isn't worth it.