Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Social Networks The Courts

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Hiring 3,000 To Monitor Videos After Murders, Violence Shown Live

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"

      But I don't think cat beheadings were part of their plans. Even cat juggling was deemed controversial.

      • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @03:01PM (#54350153)

        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

      • by telchine ( 719345 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @03:09PM (#54350217)

        Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"

        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.

        • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @04:17PM (#54350641)

          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.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Aren't the terrorists TRYING to shock people? So you're saying we should play into the terrorists's hands even more?

          • That "political will" translates directly into more foreign wars and/or erosion of our free society at home. The terrorists have realized that option 1 isn't particularly effective against them, and option 2 is what they've wanted all along. Congratulations on letting yourself be terrorized.
          • 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

      • and reporting crazy cat ladies

      • by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @03:21PM (#54350303) Homepage

        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.

    • 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]...

    • 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)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @02:50PM (#54350073) Journal

    Being a censor is becoming the biggest segment of Facebook employment.

    • 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.

      • 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:2, Informative)

          by geekmux ( 1040042 )

          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.

          • by sycodon ( 149926 )

            A-Fucking-Men!

          • 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.

            • 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

          • 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.

            • 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

              • 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.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Think of the new layer of SJW that have to look after who can censor.
      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
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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)

    by Narcocide ( 102829 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @02:51PM (#54350077) Homepage

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • Or, if you have friends that post such horrific content, simply unfollow them. Same with pages you follow. Why do you need Facebook to do anything?
  • Where's the violence-detection AI bots?

    Sounds like a great idea for a sca.....new AI company.

    • by RhettLivingston ( 544140 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @03:05PM (#54350183)
      3000 humans is not even remote to the ballpark of the required number to monitor FB's videos. It is in the ballpark of what is truly required to accelerate the training of the AI-based filters. This is 100% about doing what is necessary to reduce the problem in the only way it can be. To use humans to filter video, news, or any other media in today's volumes can never meet cost requirements.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      It turns out that robots [deviantart.net] just enjoy watching human pain and suffering too much.

  • by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @02:55PM (#54350115) Homepage
    It is a deep mistake to react to a single event by responding with a massive response unless that event really is genuinely damaging. This is akin to how one idiot tried to light his shoes on fire on an airplane and now we all need to take off our shoes when going through security. This is an overreaction at its most basic. Unfortunately, given PR and politicians grandstanding about how awful this is, this may be Facebook's best option.
    • by sims 2 ( 994794 )

      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.

      • 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.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If they didn't actively police it, Facebook would quickly turn into a cam site.

      • >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

    • by azaana ( 1444353 )
      Except there has been more than one event, and we are litraly talking about people live streaming murder this is behavior we don't want to encourage.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    step by step
    the internet dies
    per public demand

    • Facebook can censor whatever they want, they could in fact go offline entirely, and the Internet would be just fine. If Facebook isn't giving people what they want, they can use an alternative service.

      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)

    by trevc ( 1471197 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @03:03PM (#54350173)
    I could do this while at work 'cos all I do is surf the web anyway. Double income would rock.
  • Isn't this what the Stasi did?
    • 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.

    • by dave420 ( 699308 )

      No, the Stasi did not stop people live streaming murders on their social network.

      Did you get hit in the head or something?

  • Seems like you could look for keywords in comments and hyperlinking of new videos to flag bad ones.
  • his videos should rank #1.

    I have no facebook account. I've also never consumed a Starbucks product.

  • Won't someone please think of the childr^H^H^H^H^H^Hshareholders?

  • 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]

  • Twice I've reported a non-live video posted to Facebook with homicide in it. Not an artistic re-enactment or imaging. Actual people being killed. Within an hour I got a response saying it didn't violate Community Standards. So clearly, hiring a bunch of people is not enough. They have to know how to enforce policy. Higher-ups also need to draft a better policy.
    • Why do you reported it? If someone posts something you don't like, especially often, just unfollow that person or page. Easy.
  • Live + People = CRAZY! It's psychology. People en-masse are bat-shit-fucking-nuts. If an individual who is crazy and seeks to hurt himself or others, and they have the ability to broadcast to the world, live, in their pockets, they will do it. This is on facebook for introducing live video capabilities with no way to police who can/can't broadcast. This is why Television standards and stuff were invented. But you millennials think you know everything and that everyone is peachy. Welcome to reality.
  • Til their "people" censor & take down a video they deem not appropriate. They will holler & complain of (insert your favorite anti-something phrase) and it will be bad PR for Fakebook. Best thing would be to SHUT DOWN live video, and put a self censored minimum 30 minute delay. To the person posting the video, they are "live" but it buffers through the Fakebook monitors, and goes through once they give it the good housekeeping seal of approval. A lot of live TV & Radio shows have several second
  • 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.

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Working...