Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The In-House Decency Patrol At Facebook

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the keeping-the-milquetoast-lukewarm dept.

Social Networks 157

theodp writes "How'd you like a job where you get fired if you DON'T view porn at work? Newsweek reports on Facebook's internal police force of 150 staffers who are charged with regulating users' decorum, hunting spammers and working with actual law-enforcement agencies to help solve crimes. Part hall monitors, part vice cops, the $50,000-a-year 'porn cops' also keep Facebook safe for corporate advertisers."

cancel ×

157 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so lest get this straight (5, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805177)

there are people who get PAID to view porn?!

Re:so lest get this straight (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805271)

yep. my first "job"ã(back in high school) was translating pirated movies for a small video shop somewhere in Eastern Europe.

more than half of what i had to do was porn, and i liked it, because it was easier than normal films, and paid the same.

and the hard ons were for free.

good times ...

Re:so lest get this straight (4, Funny)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805283)

Call me when they pay me to view porn _and_ read Slashdot.

Re:so lest get this straight (5, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805567)

Call me when they pay me to view porn _and_ read Slashdot.

Maybe CmdrTaco could use a helping hand with getting rid of the goatse links?

Re:so lest get this straight (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805293)

I work for a web hosting company that caters to the adult industry. Looking at porn is a job requirement.

However, it's not all it's cracked up to be. Porn doesn't discriminate.

I'll let you figure it out.

Re:so lest get this straight (5, Funny)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805295)

Imagine that. I've also heard that there are people who get paid to MAKE porn!!

Re:so lest get this straight (5, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805465)

there are people who get PAID to view porn?!

You know those porn sites on that there Interwebz? Well guess what... each and every single one needs someone to at the very least maintain and run the sites, if not to adjust/crop/re-size/airbrush the material.

I remember reading the first-hand experiences of a guy hired to maintain such a site. The end result was that he found himself totally desensitized to the material, even the really hardcore stuff, to the point that porn had absolutely no thrill. So be aware of this if you every find the opportunity to check out porn on a daily basis. :)

Re:so lest get this straight (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805797)

every find the opportunity to check out porn on a daily basis. :)

No!!!!! Is that even possible????

Re:so lest get this straight (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805833)

You also have to consider that what you will be looking at is mostly homemade stuff that is probably not very exciting, maybe even a little off putting. Most people don't look to good shoot under poor light with a low res cell phone camera. I suspect this is going to be a good deal of what you find on facebook.

Light does a lot, a photo of female with a shadow on her often makes it appear as if she has hair. Ever wonder why professional photographers almost always use direct light on girls in studio work? They don't do this as much with men which they may shoot under flood because a little darkness on parts of the face make him appear rugged and manly. Then you have all those dorm room fluorescents that are going to make people look pale or green. Finally most people are just not as good looking as models who are almost always air brushed themselves.

Now when this is your girl friend or something your brain can sorta compensate for the unflattering camera effects, you can image what she really looks like and its possible very arousing. When its someone you don't know you are going to see what is on the page. So when you girl or guy friend sends you a titillating image its fun, when you are sifting though other peoples images I don't much of it is going to be a turn on. As to the models being air brushed and such, well again when its someone you have affection for you probably see what you want to see, when its someone you don't know well; her breasts are really uneven and her nose is sort big etc etc.

Finally although our society is much more open about the female form than the male; I am sure Facebook has its share of flamers and men sending pictures to their girlfriends alike. Truly, I don't think many men are as disgusted at seeing other men nude as most of us pretend. Its not like we don't see dick when we look down in the shower every morning. Still this is probably going to be at least of fourth of the images or so; that is 25% of the time you are just classifying what to you are uninteresting images. If I was doing something as dull as identifying common images a quarter of the time I was at the office, I would get to hate work pretty fast.

Frankly sifting though slightly off putting images for eight hours day, with only a handful of them making me go "Nice" sounds like a pretty terrible job.

Re:so lest get this straight (4, Insightful)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806047)

That would be a matter of taste, now wouldn't it? Personally, I'm just fed up with all those Paris Hilton wannabes wit porno pouts and oh so realistic 'acting'. I am fed up with silicone tits on top of malnourished torsos.

I'd rather look at someone's chubby girlfriend really having fun than most of those 'professionals'.

Re:so lest get this straight (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27806391)

As somebody who is getting out of the porn industry, I can vouche for this. It is like guys who print money all day. Yeah, you work with billions of dollars a day, but to you it is basically paper.

Plus, assholes will eventually leek a password to your paid content and use up 10TB of your bandwidth in a few days, costing you several thousand dollars in overages. That and everybody in the industry are a bunch of damn flakes running out of their kitchen table. Ever tried to deposit a 30,000 dollar Canadian check? Takes about a month to clear. Why dont they wire, you ask? No can do... nobody does wire transfers.

I'd go on, but screw it. The worst part is you can't really use your experiance working on such things on your resume or in your portfolio. Nobody wants to read "used photoshop to remove the background from dudes banging eachother on a bed" or "responsible for maintaining the billing system of several dozen lesbian porn sites".

It is basically a career black hole... if you dont get out quickly, you'll become stagnant and stop learning. Since nobody wants to talk about porn in public, the industry is forced to exist in its own little world with very little interaction with the rest of the computing landscape. It is like an insular little group that doesn't exchange ideas with the outside. They've got their own CMS's, their own billing systems, their own webhosts, their own everything. All of it home-grown and all of it like five years behind the rest of the computing industry...

Basically... it sucks. Sounds good in theory, but in reality. Dont do it. And whoever said that not everybody in porn is hot is right. Sure some of the stuff you work with is okay, but since everybody gets off to something different, most of what you work with is not what you personally would find attractive at all.

Re:so lest get this straight (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805887)

"there are people who get PAID to view porn?!"

I had a job like this.

I use to work in the Network Solutions Ecommerce department (netsol sux btw, fired half the staff feb 09 because they chased all their customers away). We had A LOT of adult shops and porn sites. Sub-shop.com [sub-shop.com] is the only one that still comes to mind, but it doesn't have much porn on it. They would need help with adding pictures or videos or whatever. Had to make sure the videos played correctly and the pictures lined up.

Re:so lest get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805975)

I'm a sysadmin for a large adult site, and let me tell ya, it gets boring after a while, just like every other job.

*yawn* (2, Informative)

GregGardner (66423) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806861)

When I worked at Xoom.com (of the "free homepages" fame ala geocities) over 10 years ago, we had several people on staff with the same job. But instead of 'porn cops' we jokingly referred to them as 'porn whackers'. The biggest reason for having people paid to go through this stuff was to remove kiddie porn and report it to the FBI.

Two questions: (1, Offtopic)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805185)

How do I apply and am I allowed to save the images to my computer?

Sorry, size matters (3, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805231)

How do I apply and am I allowed to save the images to my computer?

Neither your hard drive, nor your [censored}, are big enough.

They don't want people who will end up filing for workers' comp for "tennis elbow".

Re:Sorry, size matters (3, Funny)

Snarky McButtface (1542357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805819)

I have had wanker's cramp since I was fifteen and it hasn't slowed me down. Where do I need to send my resume?

**preps resume** (3, Funny)

downix (84795) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805193)

First it's the Sweedish tax collectors, now facebook! I am in the wrong line of business!

wouldn't mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805195)

I wouldn't mind getting paid to look at some porn with that chick.

Waste of money (4, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805207)

They pay 150 people $50k a year to do this when if they promised people a few hundred Texas Hold 'Em chips per report they could have millions doing it for free.

Re:Waste of money vs Deep-Pocket-Risk (1)

pg--az (650777) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805461)

Its "$50k a year" because say if a pattern could be proved, that they were deleting say "minority-porn" preferentially, acting as employees, then the corporation's entire assets are at-risk.

Re:Waste of money vs Deep-Pocket-Risk (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805639)

Because with these paid workers, things make so much more sense [facebook.com] .

Re:Waste of money vs Deep-Pocket-Risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805803)

Yes, I'd say something is wrong with someone, who thinks breastfeeding is obscene.
It has been this way for hundred thousands of years and without it, we wouldn't be here.
So suddenly it's obscene. uh. lol.

Card Check? (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805759)

Can't the Electrician'sw Union get these guys hooked up and organized? $50,000 is no living wage! Once they get senority they don't have to look at the boring stuff either, only the pretty erotica ;)

Re:Waste of money (1)

jshackney (99735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806211)

Mechanical Turk at $0.01 per HIT.

I'm sure it gets real old (5, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805223)

As exciting as this seems at first, I'm sure it gets real old real fast, and isn't nearly as cool as it seems.

Re:I'm sure it gets real old (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805289)

How is this offtopic?

Re:I'm sure it gets real old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805345)

Maybe just boring and obvious. Mods get lazy too.

Re:I'm sure it gets real old (1)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805689)

Redundant and obvious sure... but offtopic?

Re:I'm sure it gets real old (3, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805557)

I suspect they spend more time viewing JEWS DID WTC than porn, but I don't know.

Re:I'm sure it gets real old (2, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805679)

Or underage kids drinking. I'm sure that's a lot of fun...

Re:I'm sure it gets real old (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805657)

Not to drift further off topic but even when you look at porn for a couple of hours it loses its tent-raising qualities, even when it's quality porn.

Re:I'm sure it gets real old (1)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805675)

Plus its not really porn, just questionable photos, most of them people that think they look better than they do...

Re:I'm sure it gets real old (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805837)

Damn. First, it was game testing that was ruined for me... now this.

Re:I'm sure it gets real old (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27806411)

I recently left my job as a 'moderator' for text and images for several online services, and I can agree completely that it gets old fast. I'm back in a regular IT job, but it's genuinely difficult to hold conversations with my co-workers that aren't about obscure fetishes or the exact borderline between allowed and disallowed naughty content.

The other major factor you have to consider: most people who attempt to put dirty photos up are unattractive. Most are men. almost all of them know nothing about camerawork. Of all the images we rejected, about 80% were badly-lit photos of male genitalia.

My office only had about 50 casual employees, for relatively low-key sites. I feel for the facebook moderators..every action they take has the chance of hitting the newspapers.

50k$ is not enough (4, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805227)

For such a boring job.

Re:50k$ is not enough (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805355)

I was thinking the same thing, I figure

Boring == menial == low paid.

Re:50k$ is not enough (3, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805371)

Unskilled = anyone can do it = no-one cares what you think = just shut up and do it or we'll get someone eles in = low paid

Re:50k$ is not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805389)

I like that you guys consider a $50,000 a year job to be "unskilled" and "menial", when in fact it's well above the median average household income.

Re:50k$ is not enough (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805449)

Well, that implies that the median is unskilled and menial or worse. You may not like that, but it could well be an accurate description of your society.

Re:50k$ is not enough (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805533)

You are still in school, right?

Well, that implies that the median is unskilled and menial or worse. You may not like that, but it could well be an accurate description of your society.

Yes, because, mr. great economist, if everyone was skilled, everyone would command large sums of money for their work.

Re:skool is not enough (0, Redundant)

ssintercept (843305) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806515)

You are still in school, right?

Yes, because, mr. great economist, if everyone was skilled, everyone would command large sums of money for their work.

you would like to think that way wouldnt you...

if all have skills then the demand would drop because of the over-supply of skilled labor.

because, mr. great economist, if everyone was skilled, no one would command large sums of money for their work.

Re:50k$ is not enough (3, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805537)

Facebook is in Palo Alto. For $50K/y you can barely pay for apartment, car, and maybe some kind of food.

Re:50k$ is not enough (2, Insightful)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805631)

Hey! Welcome to the 21st Century and the development of the Internet! We now do not need to live anywhere near our place of employment to do work for said employer!

(PS: Yes, there are more tinfoil hat [wordpress.com] nuts than ever....)

Re:50k$ is not enough (1)

mysterons (1472839) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805375)

True, but this doesn't sound like it needs that much skill to do it. Also can't this sort of thing be automated?

Re:50k$ is not enough (2, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805483)

True, but this doesn't sound like it needs that much skill to do it. Also can't this sort of thing be automated?

They tried that, but the computer grokked some robot hentai porn and went into an infinite loop, with the dvd drive just sliding in and out and in and out and in and out ...

Re:50k$ is not enough (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805563)

It pays a good bit more than flipping burgers, and is a lot more honest than telemarketing.

Re:50k$ is not enough (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805847)

The salary is just a market figure. If someone isn't happy with $50k, bam, they're gone and they bring in someone new. As long as it doesn't happen too often and it doesn't cost too much to train new workers (neither of which should be), $50k is a fine salary for Facebook to spend on them.

Rampant Sexism (5, Interesting)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805243)

I hate how incredibly sexist the filtering is. Both sexes (generally) have a pair of nipples that appear very similar, so for one pair to be fine for prime-time television, and another pair to be fined for a fleeting appearance on TV seems very silly.

It isn't the shape of the female breast that is the issue, as a picture of a model wearing a skimpy swimming suit would pass. Male nipples? Also just fine.

Female Nipples? WHOAH, STOP THE PRESSES!
(Even if the nipple is currently feeding a child [cnn.com] )

Re:Rampant Sexism (2, Informative)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805499)

Welp, this is a larger societal issue, not just an issue with facebook.

There are protests around the world where women basically go topless and get arrested for it. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I for one welcome our firm, C-cup overlords.

Re:Rampant Sexism (1)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805527)

There are protests where large gatherings of women walk/sit around topless? Can I go ... err ... help?

Re:Rampant Sexism (2, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805561)

There are protests where large gatherings of women walk/sit around topless? Can I go ... err ... help?

If you are exposed to breasts frequently enough, they wouldn't be as titillating.

Like the women that work at Onsens and Sento in Japan: when I went to a Sento [wikipedia.org] (bath house), I didn't see a single male attendant. The women attendants would walk around cleaning stuff, and the nude men(myself included) would just ignore them.

Re:Rampant Sexism (5, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805617)

Unlike the average slashdotter I'm exposed to breasts at least every day and to be quite honest, they never stop being the single best toy in the world. Breasts are fun. End of story.

Re:Rampant Sexism (5, Funny)

orange47 (1519059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806415)

aww, how cute, baby learned to type already..

Re:Rampant Sexism (1)

deander2 (26173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806461)

i second this, and add that it remains true even after you get married. =p

Re:Rampant Sexism (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27806831)

Unlike the average slashdotter I'm exposed to breasts at least every day and to be quite honest, they never stop being the single best toy in the world. Breasts are fun. End of story.

Just because you (unlike the average slashdotter) are a woman, doesn't mean you have to rub it in what you get to do every day...

Re:Rampant Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805673)

In general, the women who do protest in that manner are women you DON'T want to see topless.

Re:Rampant Sexism (4, Insightful)

oliderid (710055) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806307)

There are protests around the world where women basically go topless and get arrested for it

Not in most european countries IMHO (Techno parades, beaches,etc).

I didn't think that the restrictive Facebook policy could be that conservative. Topless "forbidden!", mothers breast feeding children "forbidden!"...I'm quite surprised.

American media companies have no problem to show a crime scene with blood everywhere and a victim lying on the ground. but a healthy female body is considered more obscene than that. I find it so absurd in a way.

Re:Rampant Sexism (1)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805551)

I am thinking is CamelToe banned in their ToS...

Re:Rampant Sexism (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805771)

I wouldn't say it's sexism, I'd just say that it highlights how fundamentally different in function and nature nipples are perceived depending on the sex of the owner in our society.

You can read more about it in my new sociological thesis, Nipples: the Taboo on Your Chest.

Only sexism if pre-op tranies get breast photos. (0, Offtopic)

Saysys (976276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805999)

The social mores against female breast nudity are some of my favorite mores. With out it breasts would lose some of there excitement.

unless you are trying to explain how to get a baby to latch there is little reason to have pictures of a woman breast feeding.

You are one of these internet nutjobs that wants to repeal both the law against public indecency and go against our social norms, just because this one doesn't suit you.

Come up with something better or get over the fact that we hold breasts to be sacred so that we may profane them. This situation, by the way, benefits both males and females.

How difficult is it to get a simple breast-cloth to cover yourself out of respect for those around you? Sex is as beautiful and natural as breast feeding and should also not be performed in public.

Easy (2, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806579)

Male nipple aren't that exciting and don't seem to be a primary atractor to female human, but the contrary, female niplle seem to be a very primary sexual arouser for female human especially with rising size, or the puffing of the nipple (showing sexual receptivity). So your point is pointless.

Re:Rampant Sexism (2, Funny)

Velex (120469) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806889)

I hate how incredibly sexist the filtering is.

What's even worse is that it's females who are demanding it. Just think of the children! An exposed female breast could traumatize a small child, especially when they're under the age of 2!

Seriously.

Their advertizers are scum anyway (4, Interesting)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805253)

I'm aware that the advertizing is targeted, but all I ever see are ads for dating sites or russian mail-order brides.

  Oh, and those "free" credit report companies, who make the russian mailorder bride people look reputable.

  Also, isn't facebook losing money hand over fist anyway? They'd probably do better if they moved to a subscription model that let you look at other user's porn.

I know... And it's a shame (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805443)

I've worked in internet advertising and know how important ads are to many useful services AND that they often contain info I actually want to see and click (job openings, products that interest me, etc.).

So while I use adblock, I have very limited block list that I have personally made. It consists of: Ads that blink so much they literally hurt your eyes, ads that very clearly lie ("you are millionth visitor" or adult friend finder ads) and... that's pretty much it. The list has gotten quite long but still only contains those.

For long, I tried to struggle not to add facebook ads to the list. However, all the ads I am getting are VERY deceptive. There are numerous, poorly translated "[celebrity name] IQ is 136, test your's!" (sometimes using a friend's name instead of celebrity's) or "[Friend's name] has done [insert new thing], try it out" when they haven't... And then there are all the ads designed to look just like facebook buttons so that you would accidentally click them...

Though I have worked in the business, I have never seen any other site so consistently filled with that shady ads. Even porn sites mostly have real poker ads. Google has MUCH stricter policies on ads allowed. I can't imagine this kind of ad policy being good for FB in the long run.

Re:Their advertizers are scum anyway (1)

agge (1244568) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805467)

The ineradicable American war on sex and every thing remotely sexy.

Re:Their advertizers are scum anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805651)

all I ever see are ads for dating sites or russian mail-order brides.

Have you considered that maybe the ads are targeted REALLY well?

No thanks (4, Insightful)

runlevelfour (1329235) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805285)

Familiarity breeds contempt. Not only would the questionable perk of viewing porn and other amusing things become boring after constant exposure, you get to wade through the eyesore garbage people post on their page as well. Sounds like an easy gig, but one can imagine that there is a constant mountain of paperwork and reports to fill out. If you ask me it smacks of a highly paid glorified clerk job.

Re:No thanks (3, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805501)

Familiarity breeds contempt. Not only would the questionable perk of viewing porn and other amusing things become boring after constant exposure,

Kind of makes you want to feel sorry for gynecologists ...

... except the blind ones - they can still read lips.

Re:No thanks (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805575)

The highly-paid part sounds like it could make up for the glorified clerk part to me.

Re:No thanks (2, Funny)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805653)

Familiarity breeds contempt

Some clever person once said "without some familiarity, there's not a lot of breeding anyway."

Re:No thanks (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805863)

Truth - did no one see TFA mention a guy in a thong? Come on, what heterosexual guy (or homosexual female) who wants to see that while working.

lolwut (4, Funny)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805297)

There are ads on facebook?

Re:lolwut (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805613)

If there is, it is very discreet. I have just had a look around and can't see any.

Or do they mean stuff like link ins - like Amazon etc where you can order books etc?

Being spied upon (4, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805323)

The fact that these guys actually exist make me glad i'm not on facebook. Ya know facebook pretends to care about privacy all that but how can they keep that up when they have 150 paid staff who'se job it is to snoop through your stuffs?

Re:Being spied upon (2, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805463)

Ya know facebook pretends to care about privacy all that but how can they keep that up

That *could* be a problem after watching pr0n all day ... maybe they could click on some of those contextual ads for some V14GR4 ...

Re:Being spied upon (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805577)

Um...so it's ok for random strangers to go snooping through your stuff but not if there are random strangers paid to do it?

People who think things like facebook are even remotely private make me lol.

Oh and I have a facebook. I consider it public info. You could probably even find it by googling my handle on slashdot. But you're too lazy aren't you?

Re:Being spied upon (2, Interesting)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805699)

Random strangers can't go snooping through your stuff. The whole point of Facebook is to make what used to be an open field day on private information (geocities then myspace, etc.) a more private and protected one.

Facebook themselves brag about the privacy and personal protection measures. Nobody can tell if you rejected them (without effort) or what groups you've left, or if you posted photos privately for a specific friend or family member ...

When users try to get around it, its a ToS violation, but then they themselves violate these rules.

Re:Being spied upon (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805927)

Are they actively filtering semi-private material? I would think they would human-filter as little content as possible, to save money.

The article implies that they discourage all R rated postings, but it also implies that they only deal with stuff that has been flagged by a user, so it isn't real clear to me exactly what they are doing.

At any rate, people will do well to learn that when you send a company some information, you are depending solely on their respect for your privacy, there isn't anything magic that will prevent them from viewing or using that information (it may be illegal for them to do so, but that doesn't actually prevent it).

Re:Being spied upon (1)

rxan (1424721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806689)

The whole point of Facebook is to make what used to be an open field day on private information (geocities then myspace, etc.) a more private and protected one.

But this model of privacy miserably fails when people use Facebook the way they do today. People add whoever the hell asks to their friends list. That's why you see 200+ friends and the person barely knows most of them, having no idea who the rest are.

Furthermore not everyone has their profile as a private one -- the public are viewable by all.

Re:Being spied upon (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805595)

Aren't those folks simply reacting to complaints from other users? After all, a lot of content in Facebook is not private. I guess it's easy to test. Post some porn but don't share it and see how long before it's taken down.

Re:Being spied upon (1)

British (51765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806531)

Facebook to me has never been anything close to "private". Generally the MO is to use your real name & put in your address/phone number/other details a website honestly doesn't need about you,etc. Linkedin makes sense to use your real name for professional contacts(ie jobs, etc), but still I don't see why facebook needs such private data. That site seemed like an identity thief's dream come true.

Re:Being spied upon (1)

MoogMan (442253) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806813)

People posting information on a public website cannot expect their data to be kept private.

Facebook might be in for a surprise! (5, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805397)

Wait till they find pictures of their mothers on my page!

Re:Facebook might be in for a surprise! (1)

ieatcookies (1490517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806697)

Wait till they find pictures of their mothers on my page!

"...Mom??.." /sniffle

Fuck da e-police. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805433)

Fuck da e-police.

Same job somewhat (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805453)

Had this job too at a very large software company when debugging the browser code. It was the darn pron videos that would crash, or some badly formed html at the pron sites.

We had to get the employee handbook changed to exempt us from any issues.

I then helped write the nntp client, which only increased the amount of porn.

Love sex, hate nazis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27805779)

Two good reasons for boycotting Facebook: what they censor and what they don't.

Internal Corruption (3, Interesting)

pilsner.urquell (734632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27805963)

I used to have a neighbor who was a homicide detective on the Los Angeles Police Department, when I lived in that fine city.

He got transferred to the Vice Unit which seen like a demotion for a homicide detective. His explanation was that no police officer spent more that eighteen months in the Vice Unit because it tended to corrupt the offices and turn them into the criminals they where fighting.

If this holds true, and I have mo reason to doubt my former neighbor, will this be a temporary assignment? Or will we start seeing these employees start posting there own girl meet donkey videos?

--

The American Form of Government [youtube.com]

Re:Internal Corruption (5, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806071)

If you've been following what the LAPD has been up to in the last few months, you'd know that cops get cycled through the vice unit after only 18 months so that the next guy can get a turn.

Re:Internal Corruption (1)

pilsner.urquell (734632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806329)

True, but I am talking thirty years ago. Back when I had long hair and wore tie-dyed tee shirts. If true, it doesn't surprise me that the cycle has shorten.

Re:Internal Corruption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27806607)

that's assuming vice is a "crime" and not just illegal

You wouldn't like it at all (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806229)

I had the job ages ago of invesitgating complaints about a large dutch ISP's servers and user accounts content. If you send a mail that on our network there was inappropriate content, then I investigated and took appropriate action.

Do not think this inappropriate content is restricted to some David Hamilton pics ("this content is legal with in the jurisdiction of the account it is hosted from")or even the early ancestors of "two girls and a cup" ("No laws are broken").

Times might have changed a bit. The internet is a bit less of a wild west zone and facebook might not attract the very worsed of content as it is by its nature linked to your indentity but then, so was your IP to your account in my time.

I quit after a few months despite a fairly high salary because there is only so much child porn, dead bodies or both you can look at.

Re:You wouldn't like it at all (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27806753)

I quit after a few months despite a fairly high salary because there is only so much child porn, dead bodies or both you can look at.

And yet the people on 4chan do this every day and _enjoy_ it

People actully use their real names on facebook? (1, Insightful)

Ellis D Trippman (655872) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806295)

This is news to me. Why would you actually want to allow anyone to track you, you're just asking for trouble.

What a terrible job (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806365)

I bet after being required to look at porn all day every day they feel mentally scarred and get really turned off of sex in their own lives.

index sheets? (1)

TheBigDuck (938776) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806463)

can't some bright guy write a script to collect all the all the images uploaded every day and put into a "contact sheet"... you could look at a whole swath of images in one fell swoop.. I wonder how many images do they get a day?

Getting a job at Facebook (2, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 5 years ago | (#27806551)

It's revealing that the porn patroller featured in the article -- a fellow whose job is to view photos all day and press "yes" or "no" buttons -- is a Stanford graduate.

This illustrates how many people apply to work at Facebook, and how hard it must be to get a job there. This guy got his degree from Stanford and took a job that could easily be outsourced to Mechanical Turk -- just to work at Facebook.

For what it's worth, the $50K salary quoted might sound like a lot to those of you in the flyover states but it's pretty dismal by Bay Area standards. My first job out of college in the Bay Area, by comparison, paid $30K -- and that was 20 years ago.

I hope the guy is buried in options.

Re:Getting a job at Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27806657)

one of the many reasons california looks more and more like a joke to those of us in "flyover" country

Ok I'll bite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27806935)

This topic actually got me onto facebook to search for some old pictures... turns out my now x-girlfriend's topless pictures are still there several years later after being posted (and yes, they have always been set to publicly available, we fought about it when she posted them since she's one of those women's rights... people). Unless there is something seriously incompetent about the employees or the algorithm presenting them with information to judge, I don't think they care about nipples unless someone specifically complains about them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>