5 ms·

This is such a disingenuous article. It’s not about facebook at all. It’s about a company with which it and ALL other tech giants contract content moderation wo

This is such a disingenuous article. It’s not about facebook at all. It’s about a company with which it and ALL other tech giants contract content moderation work. It critiques working conditions without providing any context as to how these jobs compare to other low pay -or more likely even average pay- jobs in those countries. Formal economy jobs paying $250-$300/mo with a steady employment outlook for entry/low-skill work can be hard to come by in many -if not most- countries of the world, never mind Africa alone.

jjulius 5y ago
>It’s about a company with which it and ALL other tech giants contract content moderation work. Can you please cite a source for this claim? While it's true that Sama has partnerships with companies such as, according to the article and to Sama's website[1], Google, Microsoft and Wal-Mart, it's not entirely clear that they're also doing content moderation for all of them. They seem to offer a wide range of services. >Formal economy jobs paying $250-$300/mo with a steady employment outlook for entry/low-skill work can be hard to come by in many -if not most- countries of the world, never mind Africa alone Ah, right, because if you're lucky enough to be making more than your peers, you should shut up and deal with doing so in a horrible environment. [1]https://www.sama.com/ https://www.sama.com/
- Proven 5y ago
- Kalium 5y ago
  > Ah, right, because if you're lucky enough to be making more than your peers, you should shut up and deal with doing so in a horrible environment. Not precisely, but a person's choices should generally be considered in light of the alternatives reasonably available to them. If nothing else, it's often a great way to better understand the choices people make. Not every person has fast, easy, low-risk access to a six-figure USD SWE job with a YCombinator startup.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    Yes but when you laser focus on this fact above all overs, as someone always does when they come up on HN, you are positioning yourself more as "sweatshop apologist" than "global labor market understander."
    - Kalium 5y ago
      I would go so far as to suggest that the article is framed in a way designed to divide people into "Facebook haters and/or defenders of the exploited" and "sweatshop apologist" camps. Generally this has the side effect of making it difficult to be a global labor market understander.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  > Ah, right, because if you're lucky enough to be making more than your peers, you should shut up and deal with doing so in a horrible environment. These are the best jobs these people can get. If the "sweatshop" closes down, they're be doing somewhere worse. Maybe you throw out this shitty provocation as a way to avoid thinking about that fact?
  - jjulius 5y ago
    If "the best jobs these people can get" amount to viewing untold volumes of graphic content of wildly varying extremes, then we should absolutely be having a conversation about how employers should be treating them. Edit: We can - and should - be working to improve conditions for everyone, but just because "these people" have it better relative to everyone else in their immediate vicinity doesn't mean they need to shut up, be thankful and deal with it.
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      You keep arguing that these workers shouldn't have to shut up. Which nobody here has said. So we don't seem to be in the same conversation.
      - jjulius 5y ago
        I feel like you're seizing too literally on that phrase. Let's get on the same page before we continue... >These are the best jobs these people can get. If the "sweatshop" closes down, they're be doing somewhere worse. The implication that I read here is that you're saying "these people" should be grateful for having to work under the conditions they're working under because life could always be worse and this is the best they will have it. Is that an accurate read of your comment?
        BurningFrog 5y ago
        Not at all. Why would I have opinion about what poor africans "should" feel? Who even thinks like that? I just meant what I wrote. The implication, to spell it out, is that if you succeed in closing down these jobs, you'll make life worse for the workers you claim to care about. BTW, why do you quote "these people"?
neves 5y ago
That is a twisted mindset. Sure FB is responsible for the working conditions of its contractors.
giraffe_lady 5y ago
Something a company chooses to do is in fact about that company, even if they didn't create the pressure to do it or invent the practice, even if other people do it more or did it first, etc etc. They teach this in kindergarten so I know you know it. If Alex jumped off a bridge, that thing. > It critiques working conditions without providing any context as to how these jobs compare to other low pay -or more likely even average pay- jobs in those countries. What context could justify the global power imbalance that makes this economic relationship possible? The article is critiquing working conditions and power imbalances. I'm sorry it also doesn't take the time to explain and rationalize the economic injustice that created them. You seem to using a liberal or neoliberal framework to understand this relation in terms of its individual actors and the economic incentives and consequences of them. The missing context here isn't more details about those actors and consequences, it's an exploration of why these factors are distributed the way they are and how to engage with that system.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mbesto 5y ago
> It critiques working conditions I guess you completely glossed over the main part of the article: > They perform the brutal task of viewing and removing illegal or banned content Look, I'm a capitalist just like the next person, but subjecting ANY human being to the disgust of banned content on Facebook, Microsoft, Google, etc. HAS to take an immeasurable mental toll. But hey, I guess you just focused on the "but how much are these guys making"...
- msrenee 5y ago
  Also, very importantly, these employees were not informed that they would be reviewing this content until after the on boarding process. It seems like quite a few of the workers even relocated from places such as South Africa to Kenya before being informed what the work entailed.

jjulius 5y ago

>It’s about a company with which it and ALL other tech giants contract content moderation work. Can you please cite a source for this claim? While it's true that Sama has partnerships with companies such as, according to the article and to Sama's website[1], Google, Microsoft and Wal-Mart, it's not entirely clear that they're also doing content moderation for all of them. They seem to offer a wide range of services. >Formal economy jobs paying $250-$300/mo with a steady employment outlook for entry/low-skill work can be hard to come by in many -if not most- countries of the world, never mind Africa alone Ah, right, because if you're lucky enough to be making more than your peers, you should shut up and deal with doing so in a horrible environment. [1]https://www.sama.com/ https://www.sama.com/

Proven 5y ago
Kalium 5y ago
> Ah, right, because if you're lucky enough to be making more than your peers, you should shut up and deal with doing so in a horrible environment. Not precisely, but a person's choices should generally be considered in light of the alternatives reasonably available to them. If nothing else, it's often a great way to better understand the choices people make. Not every person has fast, easy, low-risk access to a six-figure USD SWE job with a YCombinator startup.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  Yes but when you laser focus on this fact above all overs, as someone always does when they come up on HN, you are positioning yourself more as "sweatshop apologist" than "global labor market understander."
  - Kalium 5y ago
    I would go so far as to suggest that the article is framed in a way designed to divide people into "Facebook haters and/or defenders of the exploited" and "sweatshop apologist" camps. Generally this has the side effect of making it difficult to be a global labor market understander.
BurningFrog 5y ago
> Ah, right, because if you're lucky enough to be making more than your peers, you should shut up and deal with doing so in a horrible environment. These are the best jobs these people can get. If the "sweatshop" closes down, they're be doing somewhere worse. Maybe you throw out this shitty provocation as a way to avoid thinking about that fact?
- jjulius 5y ago
  If "the best jobs these people can get" amount to viewing untold volumes of graphic content of wildly varying extremes, then we should absolutely be having a conversation about how employers should be treating them. Edit: We can - and should - be working to improve conditions for everyone, but just because "these people" have it better relative to everyone else in their immediate vicinity doesn't mean they need to shut up, be thankful and deal with it.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    You keep arguing that these workers shouldn't have to shut up. Which nobody here has said. So we don't seem to be in the same conversation.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      I feel like you're seizing too literally on that phrase. Let's get on the same page before we continue... >These are the best jobs these people can get. If the "sweatshop" closes down, they're be doing somewhere worse. The implication that I read here is that you're saying "these people" should be grateful for having to work under the conditions they're working under because life could always be worse and this is the best they will have it. Is that an accurate read of your comment?
      - BurningFrog 5y ago
        Not at all. Why would I have opinion about what poor africans "should" feel? Who even thinks like that? I just meant what I wrote. The implication, to spell it out, is that if you succeed in closing down these jobs, you'll make life worse for the workers you claim to care about. BTW, why do you quote "these people"?

neves 5y ago

That is a twisted mindset. Sure FB is responsible for the working conditions of its contractors.

giraffe_lady 5y ago

Something a company chooses to do is in fact about that company, even if they didn't create the pressure to do it or invent the practice, even if other people do it more or did it first, etc etc. They teach this in kindergarten so I know you know it. If Alex jumped off a bridge, that thing. > It critiques working conditions without providing any context as to how these jobs compare to other low pay -or more likely even average pay- jobs in those countries. What context could justify the global power imbalance that makes this economic relationship possible? The article is critiquing working conditions and power imbalances. I'm sorry it also doesn't take the time to explain and rationalize the economic injustice that created them. You seem to using a liberal or neoliberal framework to understand this relation in terms of its individual actors and the economic incentives and consequences of them. The missing context here isn't more details about those actors and consequences, it's an exploration of why these factors are distributed the way they are and how to engage with that system.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mbesto 5y ago

> It critiques working conditions I guess you completely glossed over the main part of the article: > They perform the brutal task of viewing and removing illegal or banned content Look, I'm a capitalist just like the next person, but subjecting ANY human being to the disgust of banned content on Facebook, Microsoft, Google, etc. HAS to take an immeasurable mental toll. But hey, I guess you just focused on the "but how much are these guys making"...

msrenee 5y ago
Also, very importantly, these employees were not informed that they would be reviewing this content until after the on boarding process. It seems like quite a few of the workers even relocated from places such as South Africa to Kenya before being informed what the work entailed.