The alternative is paying people to moderate it all day every day. With the mental damage this causes to people who are desperate for a job.
Just blocking it yourself seems like a better solution. You dont have to be fair in what you block yourself and (surprise surprise) you dont need to watch it in the first place.
"Just blocking it yourself seems like a better solution. You dont have to be fair in what you block yourself and (surprise surprise) you dont need to watch it in the first place."
How does that work if nobody watches it, how do you know what to block?
>She knows that section 13 of the Facebook community standards prohibits videos that depict the murder of one or more people
>It’s a place where employees can be fired for making just a few errors a week
As I understand it, an employee has to make sure its extremely likely that it is a murder. She is told she can pause it by the psychiatrist, not to close it. You as an individual dont need to find out. Just close it immediately if you assume its gore.
Not everyone processes things the same way as you and many people (children, poorly educated folk) don't necessarily have the self-awareness to make such decisions reliably. And we both know there are people who delight in propagating such material and causing discomfort to others. Perhaps consider that the problem is not as simple as it appears to you.
>Perhaps consider that the problem is not as simple as it appears to you.
I dont think its a simple problem. It is one without an optimal solution. I just think the downsides of having the stuff around are preferable to having people ruining their mental health out of financial desperation.
I also believe that the reliability would go up with time, people are able to learn quite a lot.
> as users can take care of what they watch themselves.
I don't know what you mean by that. If you visit facebook, you don't get to pick what you see. Certainly a few seconds of a murder is going to be less than desirable.
You can pick what videos you play. If it looks like its going to be a gore clip dont continue to play it. You dont need to find out if the example above, with the guys with machetes, ends badly.
> Certainly a few seconds of a murder is going to be less than desirable.
While not desirable, outsourcing your second every few days to some poor guy who has to watch it all day long doesnt sound like a good solution to me.
That's you and me. What about my kids, if I had any? Do they have the sense to remove it, or does their curiosity get the better of them? What if they aren't in a position they can stop it themselves? What if it's an innocuous enough video until the stabbing begins, and only a second is enough to cause shock?
Which can already happen, there is no prior approvement but people reacting to reports. And to be realistic, they also can and are simply google for it. You dont need facebook to find videos of people getting murdered, there are sites dedicated to that all across the internet.
Not a popular opinion, but its not reasonable to let kids have access to the current version of the internet and childproofing it is not a viable option. A lot of the issues we currently have with the internet can be boiled down to the contradiction of kids using it and the inability to child proof it. If we think that kids shouldnt have access to everything the internet allows access to, it should be feasible to get a second child proofed one online. With the focus on it being child proofed in mind during design, the maintenance wouldnt be that bad if you focus on access control. Kids are not allowed to walk into a sex shop or a bar, they get the internet right on their phone.
Just blocking it yourself seems like a better solution. You dont have to be fair in what you block yourself and (surprise surprise) you dont need to watch it in the first place.