3 ms·

They aren’t exploited. They’re paid money in return for viewing and filtering content for others. They could not apply or decline the offer and look at other jo

They aren’t exploited. They’re paid money in return for viewing and filtering content for others. They could not apply or decline the offer and look at other jobs. The availability of this job doesn’t change the rest of their employment options. But it’s pretty clear what this job is. If it was just looking at friendly content, it wouldn’t need to exist.

crystal_revenge 2y ago
Exploitation nearly always involves paying. Plenty of people caught up in sex trafficking still get paid, they just don't have a viable way out. Plenty of people working in sweat shops still get paid, but again not enough with enough viable alternatives to get out.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  You’re still not acknowledging the key points - that it is obvious up front that the job fundamentally involves looking at content others don’t want to, and that it is a new job that can be accepted or avoided without taking away from other employment opportunities. Therefore it doesn’t match these other situations you’re drawing a comparison to.
  - tovej 2y ago
    Most of these people are forced to take these jobs, because nothing else is available, they don't have the power to avoid this job. You cannot make a principled decision if your basic needs, or those of your family are not met. In fact, many well-off, privileged people who are simply stressed cannot make principled decisions if their livelihood is at stake. The world is not a tabula rasa where every decision is made in isolation, you can't just treat this like a high school debate team exercise. Not acknowledging the social factors at play is bordering on bad faith in this case. The social conditions of the moderators is _the_ key factor in this discussion. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be forced to take a moderator job, the more likely you are to get PTSD. Our social and economic systems are essentially punishing people for being poor.
jsheroes 2y ago
[dead]

crystal_revenge 2y ago

Exploitation nearly always involves paying. Plenty of people caught up in sex trafficking still get paid, they just don't have a viable way out. Plenty of people working in sweat shops still get paid, but again not enough with enough viable alternatives to get out.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
You’re still not acknowledging the key points - that it is obvious up front that the job fundamentally involves looking at content others don’t want to, and that it is a new job that can be accepted or avoided without taking away from other employment opportunities. Therefore it doesn’t match these other situations you’re drawing a comparison to.
- tovej 2y ago
  Most of these people are forced to take these jobs, because nothing else is available, they don't have the power to avoid this job. You cannot make a principled decision if your basic needs, or those of your family are not met. In fact, many well-off, privileged people who are simply stressed cannot make principled decisions if their livelihood is at stake. The world is not a tabula rasa where every decision is made in isolation, you can't just treat this like a high school debate team exercise. Not acknowledging the social factors at play is bordering on bad faith in this case. The social conditions of the moderators is _the_ key factor in this discussion. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be forced to take a moderator job, the more likely you are to get PTSD. Our social and economic systems are essentially punishing people for being poor.

jsheroes 2y ago

[dead]