Employees of Facebook working as moderators are people who must decide in ten seconds if the content that is published in the social network, will have to be vetoed; same as thousands of publications that they do not consider suitable for their users.
Last week Facebook was in the news but not for the updates on its platform, but for the Facebook Files published by the English newspaper The Guardian. In the investigation, they exposed the political controversies applied by the so-called Moderators, workers who must decide in more or less ten seconds if the content is to be published.
In the leaks of the Facebook manuals given to the English newspaper it was revealed rules that should be followed by moderators; most caused commotion in several countries. Among the most controversial are:
videos of violent deaths do not always have to be erased or discarded, as they can help raise awareness about specific problems.
- Images of physical non-sexual abuse and bullying of children should not be removed unless they contain sadistic elements.
- Images of abused animals can be published. If the content is disturbing it is classified as such, but it is not deleted.
- Abortion videos are allowed.
- You can publish artistic content of sexual activity, nudes or graffiti by hand.
- Comments like "Someone should shoot Trump" should be removed because the president has protected status.
- Phrases like "fuck you" and "die" can be published because they pose no credible threat.
- Expressions about religion and migration are allowed: "Islam is a religion of hatred," "Migrants are dirty and thieves," and "Fellow immigrant."
- All kinds of sexual language are allowed in comments and publications.
- Self-harm videos are allowed on Facebook Live.
In the same document, Facebook says that such violent expressions are used to express users' frustration and that they are relieved to publish it. However, the social network has received much criticism these days because it would be allowing bullying of children and violent acts in live transmissions like suicides and murders.
But according to the Guardian newspaper itself, the whole controversy revolves around the so-called moderators, since they are people who work under extremely stressful working conditions, are overburdened with work and are also paid low salaries; enough reasons to filter the Facebook Files to the press.
"We are underpaid and undervalued," says a content moderator who decided to keep his identity a secret. In addition, the man said that Facebook paid him $ 15 per hour if he eliminated terrorist content, after training two weeks for that work.
Although the problem goes beyond the economic. According to the testimonies revealed, the moderators must attend psychologists on a daily basis, since most of them do not manage to sleep peacefully and show they have nightmares after seeing violent and depraved content for hours.
A spokesman for the company acknowledged that this work is difficult and ensured that they are providing the necessary psychological support to the moderators, as it is not easy to see beheadings, child sexual abuse or abortions. However, an analyst hired by Facebook said that "the training and support provided so far is not enough."
The anonymous moderator also said that many of his peers are immigrants with basic English skills, hired to remove content in their mother tongue. The vast majority end up very affected after a day of work and they decide not to request psychological help to the company for fear of being dismissed or not to receive the payment, assured the English newspaper source.
After Facebook received letters of indignation for allowing the video of the murder of an 11-month-old baby by his father in Thailand to be circulated for several hours, Mark Zuckerberg decided to hire three thousand new moderators to control the publications, especially the transmissions Live.
If you where the moderator, would you banned this writing? Would it depend on whether you are a religious person or not? What variables will bend your judgement?
In January of this year, some Microsoft workers on the "Online Safety Team," who ran similar duties as Facebook moderators, sued the company for severe post-traumatic stress as a result of exposure to images of sexual abuse and heinous crimes.
Facebook has expressed concern about the issue and through a brief statement said that "sometimes we make mistakes, but safety is our highest priority." They also promise measures such as the rotation of their employees in other areas of the company, timely psychological counseling and incentives that avoid trauma for the difficult but very important work they perform.
References:
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=facebook
https://wikileaks.org/
Did this post widen your know-how ...? Great, please UPVOTE and in addition, if it is such a nice one, i.e. above average, then go ahead and RESTEEM. Appreciate your comments also.
You follow fraudin' like a mother fuka right now
Thanks for posting this @indepthstory . I will see you around!
Facebook, in my view, represents the epitome of evil. Surveillance, political agenda driven violation of free speech, fake news. I can only advise to unsubscribe from these brain washers. The only argument to remain would be to counter the lies and propaganda, but that's a fruitless battle, as they control the narrative. Deep State evil. Upvoted and Resteemed.
I am pretty much in line with your comments; now, I still think that the ultimate decision to join such a "social network" as this one, rests in each one of us. If 100% of those joining the SN would have said NO, then FB would not exist today. Still, all just wanted to have fun without even thinking about any possible consequences.
Rgds.
Unfortunately, many can't see beyond selfish instant gratification. Like Goldfish, they go for every floating crumb... That's their reward. Sad.
I can easily see both sides. On one hand, Americans are entitled to their first amendment protections and should be allowed to speak whatever truths they hold. But at the same time, there are legal restrictions on speech, such as fighting words, or anything that can incite violence. On the other end, it is also up to Facebook's discretion to decide whether or not someone's speech is appropriate for their website. That's why we've recently seen the YouTube "adpocalypse," where advertisers are pulling their ads from videos because they don't like the messages they portray. Ultimately, I side with you. upvoted.
I am free to say anything I want; still, I should think about how if affects all those near me and society as a whole. Perhaps the USA fathers assumed all mature enough to make this type of decisions.
If I were the moderator, no, I wouldn't have removed the post; however, your constitutional rights are not being infringed upon because a website removes your content. It's their site, right or wrong, they choose what they want on it and you have no say in the matter.
It is the other side of the situation. In this specific case of a social network such as Facebook they can do anything they want with your pics/writings. People accept their terms when signing in.
Congratulations @indepthstory! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPBy upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!
As far as freedom of speech is concerned, this has nothing to do with facebook. Facebook is a private company. They can allow or disallow whatever speech they want on their service. You have the right to free speech but you don't have the right to say whatever you want in my house. Same goes for facebook.
I agree that Facebook's censorship of content, as well as their on-going attempts to debunk whatever they happen to define as "fake news" is extremely problematic and scary. However, this isn't really a First Amendment issue. The Bill of Rights is a set of legal guarantees for citizens against their government. Now, the government can pass laws limiting Facebook's ability to censor people in the same way that there are laws prohibiting things like banning African Americans from eating at certain restaurants, etc. I don't know if that's the right answer, though. I don't see Steemit as a decentralized replacement for Facebook, but do you know much about Akash? (akash.world)
Good post, @indepthstory. It's a bit alarming to learn about this but I'm glad you posted this.
Interesting. Although you didn't discuss whether this actually constitutes an infringement on freedom of speech. (I don't think it does)
well when one signs onto the FB the person accepted their conditions; so they know before hand rules of the game ..... it would have been infrin of FofS if it was not agreed upon and then they curtail your topics ...
But fb is just a private company that hosts your posts/ comments on its platform. If a user was censored (or even removed), they can always go to another company/ platform. I get that it hinders the person's ability to reach as many people as before, but fb is just sufficient to exercise free speech, not a necessity.