The main protagonist of the novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by Orewell worked in the Ministry of Truth and his job was to rewrite historical records to conform to

The main protagonist of the novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by Orewell worked in the Ministry of Truth and his job was to rewrite historical records to conform to the state's ever-changing version of history. Basically he was a censor, who would remove inconvenient people or facts from newspapers or books. (I dont think Internet existed in the situation described in the book). 1984 was a big critic of communism, where facts dont mater and history can be rewritten. Are we really far from that? * Those poorly paid raters label things - and a lot of things depends on quality of their work. Do those companies even cross-check their work, when the idea is to get the lowest bidder? (on a side note, why FAANG companies dont understand the "garbage in, garbage out" concept? They can pay 300k usd to some programmer, yet they skimp on getting classifiers from USA or Europe who know the cultural context) * Then there are probably censors, who can censor things based on their own ideas. Probably censorship can happen at two levels: first by using labels, then by deciding what to show based on those labels. * Some websites have "fact checkers", who are necessary (with the amount of lies written in troll-farms and soon lies written by AI), but you cant really appeal about their process in any way - and those are some faceless people from third world countries. *Often you cannot ever contact with a real person, Google and Facebook are the worst here. Microsoft is a bit better, because if you pay them money for support, you can get human support. * Wikipedia is a constant war between vandals, but also actors that are much smarter (seem state sponsored even). When we speak about Wikipedia it is incredibly sad that it never introduced any systems to review the work of their admins (I saw a situation where some articles are "guarded" by 2-3 admins who share their own >version of facts< and nobody can do anything about that). And this could be solved by setting up panels of judges that judge edits that are anonymous. Or setting a panel of judges who judge actions of admins (yes, there is that "Arbitration Committee" that barely works). Of course then there is the question "who watches the watchmen", but still - Wikipedia Foundation has millions of dollars that they waste on various things, instead of spending it to improve their core product. On a side note, I always thought about starting such a data labeling business; I think a lot of work done by current labelers is still low quality. I saw some start-ups that were checking things (e.g. medical data) and they would pay peanuts to the people who labeled their data. Then they would get bad labels.. and build wrong conclusions on that with their classifiers.