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 Worst Job In the Digital World

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the nobody-should-be-the-internet's-filter-mechanism dept.

Facebook 258

Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports on one of the worst jobs in the digital world — moderating photos and posts on Facebook and other social networking sites flagged as unsuitable by other users. Last year Amine Derkaoui, a 21-year-old Moroccan man, spent a few weeks training to screen illicit Facebook content through an outsourcing firm, for which he was paid $1 an hour. 'It must be the worst salary paid by Facebook,' says Derkaoui. 'And the job itself was very upsetting – no one likes to see a human cut into pieces every day.' Other moderators, mainly young, well-educated people working in Asia, Africa and Central America, have similar stories. 'Paedophilia, necrophilia, beheadings, suicides, etc,' says one. 'I left [because] I value my sanity.' Facebook's one-page cheat sheet lays out exactly what must be confirmed and deleted by the team. Pictures of naked private parts, drugs (apart from marijuana) and sexual activity (apart from foreplay) are all banned. Once something is reported by a user, the moderator sitting at his computer in Morocco or Mexico has three options: delete it; ignore it; or escalate it, which refers it back to a Facebook employee in California who will, if necessary, report it to the authorities. Emma Barnett adds that although this invisible army of moderators receive basic training, they work from home, do not appear to undergo criminal checks, and have worrying access to users' personal details. 'Maybe disgruntled commuters, old schoolfriends and new mothers will think twice before sharing intimate information with their "friends" – only to find that two minutes later it's being viewed by an under-vetted, unfulfilled person on a dollar an hour in an internet café in Marrakech.'"

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

Wow (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39259993)

I thought the worst job in the world was digitally editing all of those pics of 'Octo-mom' so she only looked like she has 4 appendages instead of 8.

First! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260011)

Moderate me, muthafucka

So the moral of the story is... (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260015)

So the moral of the story is that you have no idea who could be reading what you posted to Facebook, and that privacy controls are completely meaningless when it comes to Facebook employees reading through your information? How is that news?

Re:So the moral of the story is... (5, Insightful)

kragniz (2245762) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260031)

Indeed, everything posted to facebook can, and probably will, be public at some point. Why think otherwise?

Re:So the moral of the story is... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260057)

Because if Facebook says something is only visible to "Me and My Friends", you'd expect them to be actually telling the truth.

Of course you and I know better now.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260157)

"Just think of us as friends you haven't met yet and never will."

XOXO,
-The Facebook Team

Re:So the moral of the story is... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260283)

Hey, you might be friended. You never know ;)

Re:So the moral of the story is... (3, Funny)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260353)

""Just think of us as friends you haven't met yet and hope you never will."
TFTFY

Re:So the moral of the story is... (2)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260169)

That's quite naive though because that would mean their sys-admins could not see it if they needed to, also law enforcement(in which jurisdiction?); I'm not sure how you could legally or functionally achieve either of these.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260325)

That's quite naive though because that would mean their sys-admins could not see it if they needed to, also law enforcement(in which jurisdiction?); I'm not sure how you could legally or functionally achieve either of these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption [wikipedia.org]

We have known for years that the sysadmins who run communication systems could potentially eavesdrop on us, which was one of the big motivations for public research on cryptography and public key encryption systems. I know, I know, "It's hard," "Ordinary people won't do it," "There are a million failure modes," but we are not trying to secure against nation-state intelligence agencies here. If Facebook were serious about protecting user privacy (not that anyone would expect them to be), they would have deployed cryptographic solutions to these problems long ago. If they want to be able to grant law enforcement access to these things, they can use a threshold system so that there is no single person who can read users' messages.

The reality, though, is that Facebook will only devote resources to giving users to appearance of privacy, because Facebook's entire business model is based on privacy violations.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260567)

The reality is even if Facebook deployed crypto the people who care about crypto won't and CANNOT trust FB to do it in a way secure for the users. Haven't you seen those companies that claim to provide crypto but still hand over decrypted stuff to others?

The reason why crypto sorta works for web banking is you already have made the decision to trust your bank.

If you can't trust Facebook, Facebook deploying cryptography to stop FB from eavesdropping on users is a waste of time and resources for everyone including FB.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (2)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260599)

I'm well aware of cryptography and encryption.
However I'm fairly certain that it doesn't apply here. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the reason we can have things like secure passwords is that once encrypted, they are never decrypted. When i supply my password to a secure system it is encrypted at the time of creation and the hash stored. This then is checked against the re-encrypted version supplied every time a person check it.
To perform a private/public key check on photos you want to share with a select group of people would mean effectively sharing that public key with that select group. Fine, totally possible, but what happens when it goes wrong, when the page doesn't render correctly for that photo, then you need to call in the sysadmin who can see it as you see it, much as root can su to my user account to check things from my perspective.
root always has access to all your data unless you deny them access to the private key, which is possible but I doubt we would see that on any day to day system because it would mean inputting the private key every time you wanted to view it.
I just don't know how you could have a real world sharing website that was also secure against the admins.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (1)

biodata (1981610) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260445)

Sysadmins are not generally allowed to see people's passwords because they are PRIVATE. Somehow we have let FB and the like convince us that there is no such thing as private data.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (3, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260641)

sysadmins are not able to see passwords because it is possible to encrypt them before they are sent to the central server. passwords are never actually decrypted in order to authenticate them.
photos that have to be shared would have to be decrypted at some stage. If the 3rd party you are sharing with could see them then so could the sysadmin.
Now unless you wanted to encrypt every photo independently with every person you share it with's public key, but that would be very inefficient.
Also in that case who would you police things like bullying? now you may argue that it is not the place of a website to do that, but (for example) I would expect a pub landlord to monitor his premises for illegal activity, so why not a website/forum?

Re:So the moral of the story is... (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260697)

Not sure if you're dense or trolling...

Passwords can be hidden completely from sysadmins because they're being provided by the user each time. You don't need the ability to decrypt the resulting data because you're just checking the existing encrypted blob against the new one - if they match the password is right.

Photos and status updates don't work that way.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (5, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260205)

They are telling the truth. Your Facebook friends include all Facebook employees, law enforcement agencies, ad firms, and others. Remember, any friend of Facebook's is a friend of yours!

Re:So the moral of the story is... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260345)

Does that mean the enemy of facebook's enemy is also my friend?

Re:So the moral of the story is... (4, Informative)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260813)

Because if Facebook says something is only visible to "Me and My Friends", you'd expect them to be actually telling the truth.

They may be telling the truth; from TFS

moderating photos and posts on Facebook and other social networking sites flagged as unsuitable by other users.

I may be wrong but it seems to me, one of your 'friends' would have to mark it as unsuitable first. This is a pretty much universal rule whether online or in meat-space. If you tell a friend a secret they may tell someone else your secret.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (2)

_8553454222834292266 (2576047) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260041)

News to me. Has it been publicly confirmed anywhere else that this goes on? Sure, it was always a good guess but still, even from this article it's not clear they're just going through private content on a whim. It sounds like it needs to be flagged first so I guess the other lesson is choose better "friends".

Re:So the moral of the story is... (4, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260101)

even from this article it's not clear they're just going through private content on a whim.

Well, perhaps this article from 5 years ago will help to clarify the issue for you:

http://gawker.com/315901/facebook-employees-know-what-profiles-you-look-at [gawker.com]

Re:So the moral of the story is... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260095)

So the moral of the story is that you have no idea who could be reading what you posted to the internet
 
FTFY.
 
Given the age of surveillance that we're currently involved in, there is no doubt that just about any of your communications are potentially being looked over by some party. If anything, the Facebook policy is on the up and up in comparison to some of the other techniques in play.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260463)

Wow. Modded down for what reason? Oh, that's right. The anti-Facebook zealots on Slashdot mod down stuff that point out the obvious; Facebook is no more or less secure as far as privacy goes to anything else on the internet. It's simply that Facebook is a bigger target that gets more press.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (2)

avgjoe62 (558860) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260759)

Well, I don't know about whether or not you should have been modded down, but I do think there is an distinction between Facebook and "the internets" in general.

Facebook is designed to find out about you. It knows what you like, who you like, where you are and when you were there and most times even how you got to where you are. It stores your photos, your random thoughts and even your aspirations. This is far different from the vast majority of the internet, but you are right that at least Facebook IS more up front about letting you know what they will do with that information.

The lesson? There was an old adage I used to hear, well before the internet was in everyone's lives - the only sure way to keep a secret is to never tell it to anyone else and take it to your grave with you.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (3, Insightful)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260145)

Facebook employees and their contracted third party agents.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (5, Insightful)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260189)

It's news to the Ignorants. Especially the young generation! Being in the IT field for many years, I already knew this was going to happen, and that's why I rarely use Facebook, and never use Twitter. Keep a low profile, and watch what you say or post. Never trust someone else to hold your personal data, no mater what they tell you. Keep your memories in a Fireproof safe box.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260297)

and never use Twitter

You don't use Twitter because they might misuse your private data? Can you even post something privately on Twitter?

Re:So the moral of the story is... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260225)

It's not, but this is part of why I left Facebook (as an employee). I've whined about it anonymously here for a couple years.

Even if you have a photo 'private', if it is reported, screeners will have access to it. We had one screener, who was found to be taking USB thumb drives of pictures home from the internet cafe where he worked, all pornographic. There have been cases, nothing major, where pictures leak out to the internet through these means. Nobody was willing to do anything about this gaping security hole.... infuriated me.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (2)

biodata (1981610) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260483)

I highly doubt that only one screener does this, I would bet good money that the figure is about 50%.

Re:So the moral of the story is... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260575)

No the moral of the story is that the average person have sex is no interest to someone who sees it hundreds of times a day. Despite what your teachers may have told you, you are not especially special.

Combine this with the fact that if these people are doing this job, they probably need the money and are going to be unwilling to take risks. Sure, there are some who are in for criminal gain. Just like it is crazy to give a credit card to any person who takes it out of your sight, even for a second.

There is really little difference between this and what probably happens at insurance companies. Low paid employees get a hold of embarrassing data and then make fun of the client. It is one thing to be cautious about what one puts on line. It is another to turn an unfortunate job category into an egotistical fright fest.

Moose knuckles (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260047)

I've never heard that one before, not sure I should look it up at work either :)

Re:Moose knuckles (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260251)

Think male camel toe you puritan. Go get laid, naked bodies aren't scary.

flag en masse (5, Funny)

nozzo (851371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260055)

A wizard wheeze would be to flag pictures of landscapes and kittens - let's give them something nice to view for a change instead of the facebook equivalent of rottencom?

Re:flag en masse (0)

doesnothingwell (945891) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260125)

I would prefer flooding them with pictures of everyone in a turban and claiming its Allah. The entire middle east is banned overnight.

Re:flag en masse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260535)

I would prefer flooding them with pictures of everyone in a turban and claiming its Mohammed. The entire middle east is banned overnight.

FTFY

Re:flag en masse (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260147)

I haven't tested; but it wouldn't be a huge surprise to discover that, while the UI never changes, one's ability to 'flag' is silently adjusted in the background based on the past agreement between your 'flag' attempts and the facebook rater's assessments. That seems like the easiest way to quietly blow off the axe-grinding crazies of the world without either verifiably proving that you've 'banned them from flagging' or allowing them to DoS their pet victim's kitten pictures, or all vaguely homosexual content, or whatever their personal vendetta happens to be...

Re:flag en masse (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260217)

The unmentioned pain for reviewers is the realization that all of the people in the pictures have way more money than they have and are still obviously living empty, miserable lives.

I know someone (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260059)

Sounds like a job for Mike Rowe

facebook cheat sheet (2)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260065)

"foreplay allowed.... even for same sex (man-man/woman-woman)" - I'm glad they clarified that...

Re:facebook cheat sheet (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260137)

I wonder if their moderators ever run into trouble with the local authorities because of the material they are accessing?

If your job is to review an endless stream of too-nasty-for-facebook stuff, and you live in a slightly puritanical jurisdiction, I imagine that you could relatively easily end up handling a fair amount of material that is theoretically illegal, if not necessarily well enforced(and, unlike the higher-ups at facebook HQ, who probably benefit from the 'obviously, we are just screening material in order to hand over anything wicked to the cops' presumption, it might not be easy for Joe Temp to prove that he is just doing his job)...

Re:facebook cheat sheet (4, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260545)

Conversely, I wonder if people specifically seek out this kind of job for an excuse to access this material. That whole no background check/criminal check thing worries me a little more than the privacy concerns.

Re:facebook cheat sheet (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260625)

Even if they don't specifically seek it out, and you start with a normal subset of the population at hiring, I'd assume that attrition would leave you with an employee pool consisting of newbs who haven't burned out yet, people who really need the job, and people who are entirely too happy about what they do(and, if you are running hackedFBchix.cx on the side, the buck an hour is just a bonus)...

Re:facebook cheat sheet (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260659)

I used to work at a Moderation company in Australia processing similar pictures/text to this. This was an issue that came up regularly but which we couldn't get an answer from our legal team.

The general issues are:
-We had to view blatantly illegal material in the line of our job.
-The servers were often in the USA/Europe, so the company technically transported child porn across international borders. (unencrypted no less)
-Even after it's been marked as illegal, action taken, and maybe even sent to the authorities, the original copy is not deleted. It's marked as deleted but still stored in that big old database.
-Police forces around the world want you to keep a copy. If a user posts illegal material, the police want a copy of it. If the police request information about somebody after they bust a child porn ring, saying 'we wipe everything illegal - sorry!' just doesn't cut it.

If authorities combed through their picture database, they'd find tens of thousands of illegal to own that have been transported across borders. IANAL, but it does sound very tricky.

Re:facebook cheat sheet (3, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260223)

"foreplay allowed.... even for same sex (man-man/woman-woman)" - I'm glad they clarified that...

Same sex does not necessarily mean same species.

Psychological support? (4, Insightful)

Nick Fel (1320709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260079)

I've read articles about this job before, but those reported on centres in the US where employees are given counselling to cope with the job. Is Facebook avoiding this moral duty by farming it out abroad?

Re:Psychological support? (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260231)

Farming it out to third-party contractors in uncontrolled working conditions (including internet cafes, apparently?) also seems to fail to uphold at least the spirit of their privacy policy. It's one thing to delete a nude photo that violates FB's privacy policy, and another thing to send it outside of Facebook's offices to third parties with nothing stopping them from saving it locally.

Re:Psychological support? (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260619)

Who would be stupid enough to upload nude photos of themselves to facebook?

Re:Psychological support? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260247)

Is Facebook avoiding this moral duty by farming it out abroad?

Is Facebook a corporation?

Re:Psychological support? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260369)

You assume they care? Pal, let me tell you something. Whey those fresh young executives are living the post graduate party life with booze and fast cars, what in the hell makes you think they give a damn!

Re:Psychological support? (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260819)

All offshore outsourcing is about avoiding moral (and legal) duties to US employees.

What about the benefits package? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260081)

Are the moderators at least provided with a health insurance package that will pay for the eyebleach?

A buck an hour ... (4, Insightful)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260093)

Welcome to the face of globalization, where the rush to the bottom has given us jobs that pay only 1/10 of a McJob.

We've already seen this with programers. If it's in an O'Reilly book, it will be outsourced, crowd-sourced, off-shored, whatever it takes to drive the cost to as near to zero as possible.

Welcome to the future, brought to you by the internet and the law of unintended consequences.

Re:A buck an hour ... (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260257)

Welcome to the face of globalization, where the rush to the bottom has given us jobs that pay only 1/10 of a McJob.

I'm pretty sure that in Morocco McDonald's doesn't pay 10$/hour. Even here in eastern Europe they only pay about 2$/hour.

Re:A buck an hour ... (2)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260563)

You missed the point - any job that can be outsourced somewhere cheaper will be. So instead of paying someone $10 an hour in a first world country, they go where they can pay 1/10 that.

Re:A buck an hour ... (3, Insightful)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260301)

Sorry to weigh in with an insensitive elitist perspective, but this 1/10th of a McJob salary is injecting money into an economy that wouldn't have it otherwise. If you're a champion of economic equality, it's better for them to get some pay than none at all, especially when that money is coming from outside the country.

Pity about the type of work they're offering. I'd be in favor of requiring companies that export this kind of crap work to also export decent (more desirable to the local population) work to the same labor pool.

Re:A buck an hour ... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260305)

Perversely, the best strategy might be to attempt to find ways to move globalization and outsourcing up the food chain as fast as possible...

Completely unshockingly, people in positions not experiencing strong downward pressure from globalization tend to be quite philosophical, even stoic, about the downsides and nearly rhapsodic about the upsides.

For that reason, the opponent of globalization might find no tactic more effective than identifying the intersection between 'people whose livelihoods are currently subject to substantial barriers to offshoring' and 'people who possess social and political influence' and then working to offshore the jobs held by that intersection population as rapidly and viciously as possible.

Going by this [wikipedia.org] , I'd say that news of brutal law-mills where well-educated Indians earning $2/hour, and a few starving liberal-arts majors stateside earning 30k/year to show up in a suit for functions where physical presence is required, grinding out legal product would do more than any number of stories of the gutted formerly blue-collar class to freak congress out...

Re:A buck an hour ... (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260411)

Being against globalization (and/or automation) is like looking at a car with faulty brakes and fix it by removing the engine.

We have the potential of doing the necessary political and social reforms to ensure much higher worldwide prosperity, but globalization opponents prefer to condemn hundreds of millions to abject poverty because it's easier to just ban offshoring.

Re:A buck an hour ... (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260595)

We have anti-dumping laws for a reason. The same laws should be extended to off-shoring.

Re:A buck an hour ... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260751)

I suspect that part of the impetus behind anti-globalization sentiment is the (arguably quite realistic, based on present experience) belief that while "We have the potential of doing the necessary political and social reforms to ensure much higher worldwide prosperity", it'll be a cold day in hell before we actually exercise that potential, because it's easier and more profitable to just drive down the cost of 'human resources' and go jurisdiction shopping for favorable tax status and environmental non-regulation...

The 'gains from trade' argument certainly offers a strong foundation for the position that globalization can deliver greater overall wealth; but the domestic experience, at least, has been that the income distribution skews even faster than the pie grows. It's not a huge surprise that this leaves those holding a smaller slice looking back fondly on the days when they had a bigger slice of a smaller pie...

Re:A buck an hour ... (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260323)

Welcome to the future, brought to you by free trade agreements and completely intended consequences.

FTFY.

Arguments in favor of completely removing all tariffs on Chinese imports occurred in the 1980's and were passed in the 1990's. Then Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers was giving talks about how globalization ought to be applauded because it made things more efficient (i.e. cheaper) and how it would ultimately benefit Americans because they could pay 15 cents for stuff at Walmart that used to cost 85 cents at the local general store. Both parties were all in favor of increasing the number of available H1B visas, and for making the process convoluted enough that large American firms would have the "efficiency" of hiring people who couldn't make a fuss about low pay or working conditions without risking getting deported, while the smaller firms couldn't jump through the necessary hoops.

This wasn't an accident or an unintended consequence - it was the direct and stated goal of the economic policies of George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama.

Human filters have it bad all over (5, Informative)

Brychanus (901893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260107)

I had a grad school friend with a similar job at Photobucket in Denver. They had similar no-nudity policies to Facebook but were slightly more permissive about violence. Said roommate was pretty sick of it after 3 months of having to click REJECT for images of breastfeeding and ACCEPT on videos of curb-stomping. On the bright side, when she joined the military she was one of the only recruits not to bat an eyelash when they showed them "this is your brain on IEDs" imagery.

Where is the link to flag ... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260123)

A post/image as inappropriate?
A few days ago I wanted to do this to some bestiality that someone has posted and the only thing I could find was "mark as spam".

Re:Where is the link to flag ... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260193)

I do hope that you didn't end up accusing a poor bestiality enthusiast of being a spammer...

Bestiality may be distasteful, controversial, and potentially unethical; but spamming is just plain evil.

So.... (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260143)

Evil company is evil.

And as usual the people who most need to know won't find out, and the people who already hate Facebook or unabashedly love all news technological will be worrying/whining about it for a week or two.

Slow news day?

Drug war (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260149)

drugs (apart from marijuana) ... are all banned

Personally I think that aspirin should be allowed too, but I guess I'm a bit of a radical.

Re:Drug war (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260415)

I was actually somewhat surprised at the casual wording in this document.

I guess it's a cheat sheet, but still..

Worst job ever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260153)

...is being a moderator on basically any forum that have too many different people in them.

Im an experienced moderator, and I tell you...it never changes, some forums that I moderate, are basically wonderful and hardly any moderation at all, but then the people there are pretty much the same, interested in the same things...plays pretty nicely... ...and then I moderate a LINUX forum, oh my GAWD...nuff said!

Always (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260167)

Maybe disgruntled commuters, old schoolfriends and new mothers will think twice before sharing intimate information with their "friends"

Look. It's simple. ALWAYS think twice before sharing anything on Facebook (or the internet, for that matter), regardless of what your settings are; regardless of who you're sharing it with; regardless of Facebook's privacy settings. ALWAYS think twice about it because your settings may change, Facebook may change, your friends may change. Always assume that something you post to Facebook is somehow going to "get out there". If you're ok with that, then post away. If it's something that would embarrass you or get you into trouble or you simply don't want other people to see, then don't post it.

It's not difficult. It's actually quite easy. ALWAYS think twice before you post something.

If you're posting porn online.. (2, Insightful)

js3 (319268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260185)

then you don't deserve any privacy to begin with.

Re:If you're posting porn online.. (2)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260417)

If you're posting porn online.. then you don't deserve any privacy to begin with.

Pssst - You can make porn of people other than yourself.

They even have a word for the people who do that on a regular basis - "photographers".

So, in other words... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260187)

This just in! Facebook Thinks of Children. Hires third-world help of undetermined trustworthiness to comb through all your Facebook stuff while looking for kiddie porn.
Wow. I'll sleep better now. You bet.

Too true (5, Informative)

Xtense (1075847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260199)

I work for a company that is outsourced by one of the bigger news sites here in Poland and, although I only moderate comments on news items, i can fully confirm that this is one of the worst jobs you can have. Sure, we work shifts, so we have some limited control over whether we have to get up early in the morning or work nights (four this month for me), but the pay is ridiculous (about 330$ a month - lowest legally allowed pay grade in Poland) and the amount of work is sometimes staggering. But that isn't really the problem.

The problem is the kind of shit you have to sift through. I mean, sure, I'm used to dickheads on the 'net, but this is the biggest, saddest collection of misanthropes I've ever seen - not even 4chan comes close (i used to be a regular lurker, stopped some time around the Habbo raids). This being people of my nationality adds further injury and shame. But dickheads being dickheads, there isn't really a lot to tell - we all know or met them at some point. But then there are the special ones. Let's evaluate the most popular personalities:

1. The hyper-national. Everything Polish is good, everything not-Polish is bad. Uses terms like "True Pole", throws a shit-fit every time someone calls him on his no-true-scotsman nature. Accuses everyone of being either a traitor (favourite target: emmigrants) or an SB Agent.
2. The religious fanatic. Every news item is his private piece for preaching and he enjoys lambasting people for "not keeping the faith". His favourite are scientific, astronomic and health-related items.
3. The armchair politic. Knows everything there is to know about the complex social and geopolitical problems the world faces and offers simple, one-point solutions to every one of them. Rages uncontrollably when someone offers a counter-argument, not to mention when he is proven wrong.
4. The racist/antisemite. Every negative event in the world is caused by Jews and they're all secretly plotting to make us their cattle to be used and abused as they see fit. Frequently cites the faked Protocols of the Elders of Zion, uses crappy YouTube movies with no sources, or indeed any truth in them, to "prove" his point. Everyone disagreeing with him is either a Jew or their pawn.

These are just the most basic sampling of commenters, but when thrown all together, we get a critical mass, which I then have to clean up. Every news item becomes a political battlefield between the commenters, even purely scientifical ones. And they resort to such underhanded tactics in insulting one another that sometimes you just sit there, looking at a post and wonder what kind of a person could come up with this.

After working here half a year, I'm beginning to have a hard time telling sarcasm apart, and my cynicism shot way up. It's not apocalyptic to my sanity yet, but I already feel the influence. God help me if I ever will be transfered to monitor user-uploaded material (photos).

Re:Too true (2)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260275)

Interesting... I never thought about how emigrants could be viewed as the problem rather than immigrants (I live in the US, everything here is the immigrants faults :( ), but the idea of "you abandoned us!" Makes total sense.

Re:Too true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260403)

Might just be a typo in the grand parent's post.

That goes well along with the nationalists anyway. I see it a lot on a swedish board I follow occasionally. They blame the immigrants for everything.

Re:Too true (2)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260435)

Might just be a typo in the grand parent's post.

That was my first thought, but he talked specifically about "traitors", which would certainly apply to emigrants, and not immigrants.

... Accuses everyone of being either a traitor (favourite target: emmigrants) ...

Re:Too true (5, Interesting)

Xtense (1075847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260443)

It's part of a lingering sentiment in Poland in the last 10 years, ever since we joined the EU. To explain it properly I'll need to focus a bit on how a typical young adult perceives our country.

You see, in the last 30 years we've barely kicked out communism from our doors through the SolidarnoÅÄ (Solidarity) movement. But the leaders of the Party weren't permanently barred from politics in Poland, leading to some discontent. They managed to go back to leadership through democratic vote and have been blamed for "destroying Poland" ever since. While it's true things are very hard here for the average Pole, but most of it can be traced to both tough economic transformation and high rates of corruption. This, in turn, caused a very cynical outlook in people growing up in the transformatory period, with financial success looked upon with suspicion and distrust. Because of these hardships, emigration is often seen as a "rescue" from this and most of our educated have already decided to leave our country. Most of our best healthcare personnel left the country to seek better wages, causing our hospitals to be terribly understaffed and underpayed. This is where the "traitor" thing comes in - people accuse emigrants of "leaving us to our fate", further cementing our economic and political hardships, "diluting our blood" if you will.

I don't agree with this sentiment, but I can see the reasoning standing behind it. What is most often forgotten by those representing this view, however, is that many of those emigrants send money back to Poland to their families, thus allowing them to buy more, in turn strengthening our economy, but such things are unfortunately unaccountable, so there are no ways of determining how much of an impact this has.

Re:Too true (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260601)

I'm guessing the OP really meant "immigrants". Either way, this post exhibits better English than 99.9% of native English speakers are capable of. I'm not exagerating in the slightest. Color me impressed.

Incidentally, I think they have hit on the reason why Americans, famous for being "sarcasm imparied", are that way. We just have way more nutjobs over here. So when someone says something completely assenine, sarcasm isn't nearly as safe a bet as it might be in other places.

Re:Too true (2)

Xtense (1075847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260661)

Sorry, I really meant "emigrants" - that double m sort of snuck through ;) . My sibling post earlier describes the sociological problem that stands behind it.

Also, "scientifical". Gah. That's what you get for not reviewing what you wrote.

Re:Too true (2)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260681)

Here in Europe, the Polish are often seen as synonymous for cheap labour (they are the Mexicans of Europe, if that makes sense). I could see how some patriotic Mexicans might disagree with their fellow countrymen jumping the border to work in the US.

Re:Too true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260809)

You said: "I live in the US, everything here is the immigrants faults"

I'm tired of people spouting the myth that immigrants are unwelcome here in America, just because a small minority of immigrants are hassled by a small minority of bigots. So I'm going to call your bullshit:

"A recent survey by Public Agenda, a polling group, asked immigrants in America how long it took them to feel comfortable and "part of the community". Some 77% said it took less than five years. Only 5% said they had never felt that they fitted in." From http://vijayvenkatesh.me/going-to-america-a-ponzi-scheme-that-works-th-0

So take your stereotype and apply it somewhere else, because it doesn't belong here. If you can't see past the hyped headlines to the reality that we are a mostly welcoming society then you need to get your nose out of the new sites and into real life more often.

4Chan *shiver (1)

jjp9999 (2180664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260255)

This is exactly why I stopped visiting 4Chan. That site creeps me out. I'm sure the people who check flagged content on /b/ are escaped mental patients.

Re:4Chan *shiver (4, Insightful)

beowulfcluster (603942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260585)

You've never browsed Slashdot at -1, I see. The mods on here who keep the depravity out of honest, law abiding peoples sight don't even get paid minimum wage, it's an outrage.

So... Is all that illicit content... (1)

billybob_jcv (967047) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260261)

...routed to break.com? That would explain a lot...

 

Not to worry (-1, Flamebait)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260307)

With Slashdot's new "Flag comment as inappropriate" feature, Geeknet will soon have to hire more staff to check out all the content that we start posting :P

Re:Not to worry (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260401)

With Slashdot's new "Flag comment as inappropriate" feature

That would leave about 10% of the comments left on any given thread. And even those will only still be there because the moderator is too fucking stupid to appreciate irony.

I work at Facebook (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260321)

It's surprising the number of devs you hear joking about seeing "JB"... A bunch of 20-something guys with unlimited access to much of the worlds "private" pictures, isn't always a great idea...

Ear wax? (2)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260395)

"Urine, feces, vomit, semen, pus, and ear wax "

Seriously? Lot of ear-wax fetishists out there, to the point they need a rule banning its depiction?


"Crushed heads, limbs, etc are ok as long as no insides are showing"

Because, y'know, a completely flattened dead cat ("Deep flesh wounds are ok to show") couldn't possibly offend anyone, while showing a packet of chicken livers at the grocery store borders on mass-murderer territory?


"Maps of Kurdistan (Turkey)"

Just - What? And this counts as an "escalated" offense? Hell, the entire "IP Blocks" section pretty much reads like the antithesis of Facebook's sole positive contribution to society - Its ability to help organize people against their governments.


I think I need to go make a facebook page full of flattened dead cats - All named Ataturk, whatever the hell that means.

Re:Ear wax? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260757)

"Crushed heads, limbs, etc are ok as long as no insides are showing"

Because, y'know, a completely flattened dead cat ("Deep flesh wounds are ok to show") couldn't possibly offend anyone, while showing a packet of chicken livers at the grocery store borders on mass-murderer territory?

Known as the "cartoon rule" or perhaps "looney tunes rule" if you like. any amount of folding, spindling, or mutilation is acceptable so long as there is never any gore.

no one likes to see a human cut into pieces daily (-1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260451)

LIAR

unless you mean multiple humans

http://www.reddit.com/r/spacedicks [reddit.com]

http://www.reddit.com/r/gore [reddit.com]

http://www.rotten.com/ [rotten.com]

cut up, burning, crushed, attacked by animals, shot, decomposed

BRING IT ON FAGETS

Re:no one likes to see a human cut into pieces dai (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260731)

BRING IT ON FAGETS

Why would you want it brought on top of fagets? Is that your "thing"?

yes, the pay sucks! (2)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260505)

I see I have several mod points here on Slashdot today! And I don't even get $1/hour! Can I get a pay raise? I refuse to moderate this story thread until I do!

Sexism (0)

_8553454222834292266 (2576047) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260521)

Naked 'private parts' including female nipple bulges

male nipples are ok

There's gotta be some way to genocide all the Puritans ...

Re:Sexism (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260643)

Can you imagine a group of low-payed men sitting behind a monitor trying to figure out whether a picture of a nipple bulge is male or female?

Re:Sexism (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260769)

There's gotta be some way to genocide all the Puritans ...

I've tried every legal character so far, and I just keep getting the rock piercers and such.

As I explained the "inter" nets to my mother (4, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260533)

Once what you wrote or sent floats over to that little magic box and goes down the copper wire, you might as well be carving it on the surface of the moon in ten mile high letters of fire. Assume that everybody in the world can see it, immediately and forever after.

$1 an hour (4, Insightful)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260541)

there's plenty o'people would do it for free

Been there, it's not fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260557)

Whilst working for a once large American Online ISP, I was given the job of testing our parental controls. I had to enable them and try to access a whole raft of extreme content. Some of it was fine but others... nasty. I was on the phone to our Internet Security team every hour assuring them that I wasn't doing it for fun and that they shouldn't get me sacked. :)

Worst job except this one... (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39260605)

From TFA:

which refers it back to a Facebook employee in California who will, if necessary, report it to the authorities

Surely the californian employee who only gets to see the very worst of these pictures every day must have a worse job than the people who also get to filter all the nice pictures.

breastfeeding is apparentely a sexual content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260695)

the picture [gawkerassets.com] linked on what should be filtered. Look in the first column, a lot of decpition of sexual content. but two things compeltely blow me out of my mind (as European) :

1) Male nipple are allowed but female nipple is not (point 2 left msot column)
2) breastfeeding (point 6) without cloth on. What the heck. I have to itnerprete that if you do not have at least a shirt, then it is sexual in nature ? Why ?
3) illegal drug use. Why ? Picture of "drug use" are not illegal in any western european country I know of. Especially marijuana.

Sigh the world would be much better if company were a bit more thick skinned than the average folk.

He obviously doesn' know what a nipple looks like. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39260753)

So thats the Asshole thats been flagging my pictures of landscapes and dogs as Inappropriate and sending me BS letters about content. Stop jerking off to the pictures and do your $1 an hour job right.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?