Facebook Hiring 3,000 To Monitor Videos After Murders, Violence Shown Live (usatoday.com) 114
Facebook will add 3,000 more people to its community team to review videos on the social network, says CEO Mark Zuckerberg, after several surfaced in recent weeks including a father livestreaming the killing of his daughter. From a report: In a statement published to Facebook on Wednesday, Zuckerberg says it is "heartbreaking" to see videos streamed or posted to the platform showing users "hurting themselves or others." He says 4,500 employees currently work on the community team reviewing reports on videos, and will add 3,000 over the next year. "If we're going to build a safe community, we need to respond quickly," said Zuckerberg. "We're working to make these videos easier to report so we can take the right action sooner -- whether that's responding quickly when someone needs help or taking a post down." Will Oremus, reporter at Slate said, "I asked Facebook whether the 3,000 new content-moderation jobs will be employees or contractors. The company declined to comment."
Re: (Score:3)
Have people apply for doing live video...maybe make them send in some samples to be judged first...that way no one could do it on a whim.
Another idea, if you get live stream privs, why not have noobs have 30 second or a min or two delay...? That way folks could maybe monitor them and cut them before they hit the air.
Hell, even Richard Pryor on SNL years back was on like a 3-5 s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems one of the first things to do...is NOT just let anyone post live on FB (or the other platforms) as a default capability.
Here is an even better solution: Grow and realize that bad stuff happens and it will happen whether or not it is posted live on FB. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it is not happening, and if you don't want to see it then CLOSE YOUR BROWSER TAB.
None of the things mentioned are FB's "fault", and "more censorship" is NOT the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos (Score:2)
Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"
Re: (Score:1)
But I don't think cat beheadings were part of their plans. Even cat juggling was deemed controversial.
Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos (Score:5, Funny)
But I don't think cat beheadings were part of their plans.
That can only be the work of the jihadi terrorist group MICE-IS
Re: (Score:1)
Just drop a MEOAB on em
Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos (Score:4, Insightful)
But I don't think cat beheadings were part of their plans.
Exactly. This sounds like an horrific job. They're being paid to watch the nastiest stuff on the Internet and judge if it's going to psychologically harm people.
I knew someone who's job it was to watch terrorist beheading videos and then watch all the gruesome blood, and death bits so it could be cut out to show on the news in a manner that wouldn't traumatise viewers. It's only a matter of time before seeing that stuff is going to affect you.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not my thing, but it probably would be after having a job like that.
Re: (Score:2)
good fucking god!
I think I'd need more than a bowl of pot after doing that for a living!
Seriously I hope that of the 3000 employees they are hiring, they plan on 300 of them being Psychs, I think that a single counselor *might* be able to handle 10 patients who all have to deal with shit like this.
related, IDK that it's FBs fault that people are capable of being so horrible to each other or animals, but maybe this live streaming thing is too far in search of a buck?
Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos (Score:4, Insightful)
I knew someone who's job it was to watch terrorist beheading videos and then watch all the gruesome blood, and death bits so it could be cut out to show on the news in a manner that wouldn't traumatise viewers. It's only a matter of time before seeing that stuff is going to affect you.
If viewers didn't get a sanitized version of events there would be more political willpower to do something about people whose agenda includes sawing off the heads of "infidels" with knives.
Re: (Score:1)
Aren't the terrorists TRYING to shock people? So you're saying we should play into the terrorists's hands even more?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you clearly don't understand and neither do the people who voted this Insightful.
Showing it in a non-sanitized version is only giving them exactly what they want. You're validating their viewpoint that the people of the West are nothing but vicarious bastards who should cower in fear at what this regime is doing, or worst, demand action that usually doesn't even lead to the destruction of the original culprits and the harming of many an innocent person.
That news channels would show any part of this kind
Re: (Score:2)
and reporting crazy cat ladies
Re:Getting Paid to Watch Cat Videos (Score:5, Funny)
Even cat juggling was deemed controversial.
Cat juggling can be very beneficial. Picture somebody with a box full of kittens trying to give them away. He'll have a very tough time - Not many people want an extra kitten. BUT, if he starts juggling those kittens he vastly widens the audience of people willing to take those kittens from him. Much more effective. We could organize this approach into The Inhumane Society.
Re: (Score:1)
Does that work for bosses also?
Re: (Score:3)
Worst job on the internet... (Score:2)
Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"
As always, be careful what you wish for as this posting reminds us [slashdot.org]...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right up until the moment they find out that they've signed up to get paid to find the next surprise "Two Kids One Hammer" video instead.
What a waste (Score:4, Insightful)
Being a censor is becoming the biggest segment of Facebook employment.
Just ditch it (Score:2)
Live streaming for individuals is probably a net detriment for society.
There are way too many tools that allow you to completely fuck up in life and broadcast it to the world.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry, what? You want to ban or restrict these tools so as not to offend people? Well, if Facebook ditches them, I hope an alternative pops up, in a fashion that can't be taken down by anybody.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but it's still too easy to have stuff taken down. We need something robust to prevent that.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sorry, what? You want to ban or restrict these tools so as not to offend people?
No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.
Speaking of offensive,, let's look at social media addicts. Nothing but a bunch of fucking narcissists addicted to whoring out every single aspect of their lives online in hopes of getting pointless attention. Talk about a net detriment to society. It's pathetic. Fuck social media live streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
A-Fucking-Men!
Re: (Score:2)
No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.
Maybe you should focus on your own life, rather than trying to micro-manage the lives of other people. If they want to spend time on FB, that is their choice, not yours.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.
Maybe you should focus on your own life, rather than trying to micro-manage the lives of other people. If they want to spend time on FB, that is their choice, not yours.
Maybe we should focus on the reason we're having this discussion, since the issue is not merely limited to narcissism, but also the innocent victims of it. Social media live streaming has streamed homicides of children, which brings for the question; would narcissists have murdered if the live spotlight wasn't available? Further analysis needs to be done, but the impact certainly begs the question.
Regardless of the criminal impact, narcissism is not a good human trait. And social media has addicted milli
Re: (Score:1)
It's just a phase. Something we have to get though by guidance, not obstruction. We don't want or need society telling us what we can put up on the internet. That's just another form of dictatorship. You don't have to read or watch.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a phase. Something we have to get though by guidance, not obstruction. We don't want or need society telling us what we can put up on the internet. That's just another form of dictatorship. You don't have to read or watch.
Let's not overlook or dismiss the very reason we're having this discussion. This "phase" has cost the lives of innocent victims, including children, which me not reading or watching hasn't changed that fact.
And laws already DO tell you what you can and cannot put up on the internet; laws defined by a civilized society that exist for valid reasons. The First Amendment does not magically waive our right to abide by those laws. Start spewing terrorist rhetoric or threaten the life of a standing president o
Re: (Score:1)
The First Amendment does not magically waive our right to abide by those laws.
Maybe you should read it sometime and tell me where the exceptions are. The power of the word, both positive and negative, comes from the listener, not the speaker.
Bad behavior is a problem because most of the time society rewards it with great wealth and power.
Re: (Score:2)
A communist government that wants no talk of past Party members, leadership or the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
A theocracy, monarchy or kingdom that pays for ads wants no blasphemy or faith related cartoons.
Germany wants no comment on the numbers of illegal migrants wondering around.
Governments want users reported if they comment on political policy.
New jobs for US graduates. All the topics they banned on campus can now be bann
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to LWNJ slogans like "racist!" "sexist!" "homophobe!" "islamophobe!" "fascist!" etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, this is just stupid. Facebook is a for-profit, commercial platform. It has decided it doesn't want these videos. Not wanting to show you murdering someone on live stream is not censorship. In fact it's protecting the victim's right to privacy.
Plot twist! (Score:4, Funny)
Will Oremus, reporter at Slate said, "I asked Facebook whether the 3,000 new content-moderation jobs will be employees or contractors. The company declined to comment."
Ironically, they'll be hired from the same foreign worker pool that's being paid to post the videos in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you play your cards right you could get paid twice for doing nothing? Where do I sign up?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On second thoughts, I might have to work with criemer [slashdot.org].
I'll give it a miss.
Re: (Score:3)
The psychological damage will require them to hire 4500 new employees every few months.
Ironically, part of those previous 4500 employees will be the ones posting violent videos in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
The psychological damage will require them to hire 4500 new employees every few months.
This can be solved by careful psychological screening of applicants. Only hire the sociopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Then who's going to work for governments?
hnnn (Score:1)
this is a step in the right direction, but I think the responsible thing to do -- and something facebook is actually in a position to pursue, unlike some companies -- is focus on machine learning etc to better identify such videos without causing unnecessary psychological damage to human reviewers.
Re: (Score:2)
They use humans? That's so 2013 (Score:1)
Where's the violence-detection AI bots?
Sounds like a great idea for a sca.....new AI company.
Re:They use humans? That's so 2013 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out that robots [deviantart.net] just enjoy watching human pain and suffering too much.
This is the wrong reaction. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Overreaction? Probably but I personally don't know how many posts are reported in a day they do need to be able to check reported posts in a timely fashion but they don't need to screen all posts.
It's not a job I would want i'm sure 90%+ is just stuff people are reporting to be jerks but occasionally they are going to be shown things no person should ever have to see and that's another 3,000 people that will probably need some counseling eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
occasionally they are going to be shown things no person should ever have to see and that's another 3,000 people that will probably need some counseling eventually.
What about when the new AI robots that eventually monitor and curate FB need counseling themselves? Wow -- it's a new job opportunity! ... for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
If they didn't actively police it, Facebook would quickly turn into a cam site.
Re: (Score:2)
>If they didn't actively police it, Facebook would quickly turn into a cam site.
They're missing out on something, then. It'd be easy enough for them to 'wall off' a section of the site for adult services - charging to confirm identify, legal age, legality of the production in the location of origin, etc - and then allowing their confirmed over-18 members to access it while taking an ongoing cut of the cam fees.
They'd still have to monitor for people trying to run their cam site outside the prescribed ar
Re: (Score:1)
step by step (Score:1)
step by step
the internet dies
per public demand
Re: (Score:2)
What the internet won't survive is corporatist guys like Ajit Pai regulating it. He'd rather have you buy "Facebook Internet" or whatever, where you can't access any site that's not on Comcast's approved list. Not without coughing up an extra couple hundred, anyway.
Win Win (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Paging Erich Honecker (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't a government agency.
They can do whatever they want with regards to hosting or not hosting videos. Hell, they could decide tomorrow that they don't want the hassle any more, and stop supporting video posting and live feeds.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Stasi did not stop people live streaming murders on their social network.
Did you get hit in the head or something?
and when some get's off for live murder as fakeboo (Score:2)
and when some get's off for live murder as Facebook messed up the chain of evidence
Re: (Score:2)
And how exactly are they going to accomplish that? Their blocking afaik is all based on after the fact video they have to check.
Someone saw it being livestreamed that's how it got reported.
As far as the police brutality thing goes the united airlines video was pulled off the front page of reddit at least twice due to a policy prohibiting police brutality videos. IIRC they finally just posted a video of someone walking down the aisle so the story could stay on the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
if facebook is the only thing keeping society at bay from anarchy... i guess my nuclear shelter will definitely pay off.
Pretty crude... (Score:2)
Zuck the cuck (Score:1)
his videos should rank #1.
I have no facebook account. I've also never consumed a Starbucks product.
Build a safe community (Score:2)
Won't someone please think of the childr^H^H^H^H^H^Hshareholders?
PTSD (Score:2)
Hopefully their are good medical benefits. Some of Youtube's human censors have quit and been diagnosed with PTSD due to all the disgusting, traumatic, and disturbing videos some people try to upload to youtube.
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://gizmodo.com/5936572/th... [gizmodo.com]
Believe It When I See It (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to work. (Score:2)
oh I can't wait (Score:2)
Working as intended? (Score:1)
Psychopaths post live on FB, making it easier to find them and remove from sane society.
In the long run, psychopaths are greatly reduced.
I suppose FB could use some employees to give us a warning to the live video content ahead, so common people don't get PTSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That's why we need tons more H-1B. America has no next generation to speak of.
Where do you think all the new hires are coming from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Watching a violent video online can lead to PTSD [www.cbc.ca], inducing nightmares, anxiety and panic attacks. One study study found that people who watched traumatic events on video were more traumatized than those who watched it in real life [vice.com].
So, yes, watching a traumatic video is definitely unsafe. And I sincerely help that Facebook provides psychological help to their workers who will be screening for these disturbing videos.