[HN Gopher] Open Letter from Facebook Content Moderators
___________________________________________________________________
Open Letter from Facebook Content Moderators
Author : ynac
Score : 91 points
Date : 2020-11-18 21:27 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.foxglove.org.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.foxglove.org.uk)
| supernova87a wrote:
| Alternate version, points #1-5: _We 're so tired, so very very
| tired of doing this._
| anoncow wrote:
| The best corporations are heartless machines (in this case this
| applies to the contractors primarily, not sure if FB would mind
| if the work is getting done).
|
| We should be thankful for the jobs that we have today.
| Corporations of the future will not need as many warm bodies.
| (Sarcasm)
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I'm glad that you don't have a time machine. So you can't back
| and persuade those who worked 16-hour days in unsafe conditions
| that they should be thankful for the jobs they had then.
| anoncow wrote:
| Was being sarcastic.
| gtrhtrhtrhtr wrote:
| What's interesting is that Facebook, like Google, and other
| similar companies, are absolutely the best places to work at
| with the way they treat their employees, the benefits, etc. So
| now imagine how most companies treat their employees...
| exogeny wrote:
| They're not employees, they're often contractors. I think
| that's the point.
| metachor wrote:
| What the heck kind of take is that? We should be fighting tooth
| and nail today to not let that kind of future come into
| existence.
| SteveGerencser wrote:
| Some of us have tried for decades. But people like cheap/free
| stuff and don't care what happens behind the curtain for the
| most part.
| anoncow wrote:
| Agreed. I was being sarcastic. We should be striving for
| better working conditions.
| cambalache wrote:
| We should, but we are not doing that. We have been cleverly
| manipulated to care more about what a soon-to-be-ex president
| said or didnt say or how many genders actually exist. You can
| protest against everything except those things that are
| against the interests of the rich and powerful. The protests
| are channel to serve their interests, not the other way
| around. Dont believe me? Just a sample: https://trends.google
| .com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... Dont believe me?
| Just a sample:
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The TL;DR is that around 200 content moderators, location
| unspecified, are protesting decisions to move them back into the
| office.
|
| It's not immediately clear from the letter that this was
| Facebook's decision. In fact, it appears that Facebook
| subcontracts content moderation to Accenture and CPL, both of
| which are named in this letter.
|
| The letter also takes shots at Mark Zuckerberg's growing wealth
| and attacks Facebook's attempts to augment the human content
| moderators with AI pre-filters to remove the worst content. The
| latter claim is strange, as the content moderators are the ones
| most likely to benefit from AI pre-filtering. They try to claim
| that Facebook "failed" to create a workable AI, but I seriously
| doubt that Facebook has given up on the project. More likely that
| they're still iterating. I suspect these people feel they need to
| attack the AI angle to protect their jobs.
|
| The letter goes on to demand 50% higher hazard pay, demands that
| the subcontracted content moderators be hired directly into
| Facebook as full employees, out of their contracting jobs under
| consulting firms.
| [deleted]
| gtrhtrhtrhtr wrote:
| I'm wondering if there is also an element of: you should be
| surveilled while you moderate content, as otherwise you could
| steal it. It's a hard problem as moderators have access to user
| data (I imagine).
| occamrazor wrote:
| I imagine that a locked down laptop running just the
| moderation UI provides reasonable security. If not, the
| camera can ensure that the moderator doesn't use the "analog
| hole" to copy video or image content. Forced use of
| headphones instead of speakers finally almost closes the gap
| for audio.
| Karunamon wrote:
| Even company-mandated spyware is superior to hauling everyone
| into an office in the middle of a pandemic.
| dbt00 wrote:
| > They try to claim that Facebook "failed" to create a workable
| AI, but I seriously doubt that Facebook has given up on the
| project.
|
| On the one hand, they probably haven't. On the other hand, they
| provably aren't as close as they thought they were, and may be
| very far away.
| satya71 wrote:
| Facebook should bear the brunt. In a more reasonable
| arrangement (in which, the generator of risk has to bear the
| liability), these people would be direct employees of Facebook.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> in which, the generator of risk has to bear the liability_
|
| Do you think this in general, or just for content moderation?
| For example, is it reasonable that I can buy car insurance
| that covers me if I cause an accident?
| arcticbull wrote:
| > For example, is it reasonable that I can buy car
| insurance that covers me if I cause an accident?
|
| Reasonable? I'd describe it as mandatory, and not even a
| question in no-fault jurisdictions.
| leetcrew wrote:
| > For example, is it reasonable that I can buy car
| insurance that covers me if I cause an accident?
|
| did you mean to phrase this differently? isn't that the
| primary purpose of having car insurance?
| zentiggr wrote:
| If part of someone's work responsibilities involves screening
| for child abuse and other direct violence, and every other
| depravity a user might try to post, that worker should be given
| the best possible mental health support, and be paid
| substantially more than any minimum wage.
|
| Like anyone serving in the military and possibly subject to all
| the PTSD and injury that combat can entail, these moderators
| are standing as a thin line against the worst things humanity
| can do to each other.
|
| They should be given respect and every possible consideration
| for their sacrifice.
|
| Their demands are merely a simple first step closer to the
| recognition they actually deserve. I would go much further.
| toyg wrote:
| _> It 's clear that they want Facebook to bear the brunt of the
| bad PR_
|
| That's the right thing to do, considering FB is the only entity
| with some power over their employers. Avoiding this kind of
| thing is exactly why brands outsource their dirty work.
| monkin wrote:
| > 5. Offer real healthcare and psychiatric care. Facebook
| employees enjoy various benefits, including private health
| insurance and visits to psychiatrists. Content moderators, who
| bear the brunt of the mental health trauma associated with
| Facebook's toxic content, are offered 45 minutes a week with a
| 'wellness coach'. These 'coaches' are generally not psychologists
| or psychiatrists and are contractually forbidden from diagnosis
| or treatment. And they generally cannot build a relationship of
| trust with moderators, since workers know that Facebook
| management (and Accenture/CPL management) ask 'coaches' to reveal
| confidential details of counselling sessions. Moderators deserve
| at least as much mental and physical health support as full
| Facebook staff.
|
| Low pay and no psychiatric help with that kind of content?! This
| is just outrageous. Mark should moderate this stuff by himself to
| see how huge burden it is. And, this is not Rotten or Goatse type
| of shock it's entirely different level.
| zentiggr wrote:
| I'd love to see everyone in Facebook's chain of command above
| the moderators being required to do a week worth of the actual
| moderating.
|
| Then let them say in public that they're doing their best for
| their employees.
| grecy wrote:
| I agree with you wholeheartedly, but capitalism has allowed
| this kind of thing for generations.
|
| Mining magnates should be forced to work at the coalface. The
| Waltons should be forced to stock shelves, Bezos should be in
| the distribution centres.
|
| The list is endless, and unfortunately this is nothing new.
| The best we can do is minimum wage laws and unions to try and
| "negotiate" with billionaires to give us a crumb.
| yeetman21 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > I think the best thing that can happen to those jobs are
| they they are automated out of existence with AI
|
| Yes, because having your account/post/whatever flagged by
| Google/Facebook/whoever and being unable to talk to a human
| about why or get any type of response is "the best thing that
| can happen"
|
| It's a shitty job but somebody has to do it (or we have to
| wildly rethink what it means to have free speech), and
| wouldn't it be nice if the people doing it weren't abused?
|
| Maybe scale fundamentally makes some experiences worse for
| the consumer and the cost burden should be shouldered by the
| corporations profiting from it?
| gmadsen wrote:
| 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.
| justiceforsaas wrote:
| Is there a particular logical reason why Facebook required these
| people to get back to office? Is it related to productivity?
| Would be curious to hear Facebook's take on this.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Wtf, people who work at computers, having to work in offices,
| _now_? It's the very worst it's ever been! What are they
| thinking?
|
| I'd expect almost everyone who works at a computer screen to be
| working from home since March. Even if it requires expensive
| technical solutions to ensure it. I can't imagine moderators need
| more than an internet connection and computer.
| delroth wrote:
| My understanding is that there are certain legal requirements
| associated with content moderators who may have to review
| illegal content, especially around child abuse / sexual
| imagery. This is what I've been told in the past by friends in
| other companies working on content moderation -- I don't have
| any specific evidence for or against it, but it passes the
| smell test.
|
| The whole thing in the article about Facebook suddenly trying
| to automate this part of the content moderation job seems to
| also point in that direction.
| bredren wrote:
| I also presume that this is related to the type of content
| that has to be reviewed and the need to have premises
| recording of the work as it is being done for audit.
|
| Sounds like someone in the automod product failed to deliver
| or failed to deliver in a timely enough manner.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-11-18 23:00 UTC)