211
Apple sued over abandoning CSAM detection for iCloud | TechCrunch
(techcrunch.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
211 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
88796 readers
4538 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
First: I'm not in any way intending to cast any negative light on the horrible shit the people suing went through.
But it also kinda feels like a lawyer convinced a victim they could get paid if they sued Apple, because Apple has lots of money.
If you really were serious about suing to force change, you've literally got:
Apple, at least, will take immediate action if you report a user to them, so uh, maybe they should reconsider their best target, if their intent really is to remove content and spend some time on all the other giant corpos that are either literally actively doing the wrong thing, doing nothing, or are sitting there going 'well, akshully' at reports.
I used to share an office with YouTube's content review team at a previous job and have chatted with a bunch of them, so I can give a little insight on this side. For what it's worth, YT does take action on CSAM and other abusive materials. The problem is that it's just a numbers game. Those types of reports are human-reviewed. And for obvious reasons, it's not exactly easy to keep a department like that staffed (turns out you really can't pay people enough to watch child abuse for 8 hours a day), so the content quickly outnumbers the reviewers. Different types of infractions will have different priority levels, and there's pretty much always a consistent backlog of content to review.
While this article talks about Facebook, specifically, it's very similar to what I saw with YouTube's team, as well: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona
I wonder what the package was, besides the salary. And the hiring requirements.
I don't know all the details, but I know they had basically unlimited break time, as well as free therapy/counseling. The pay was also pretty decent, especially for a job that didn't require physical labor or a specialized background.
They did have a pretty strict vetting process, because it was apparently not uncommon at all for people to apply to the job because they were either eager to see abusive content directly, or had an agenda they might try to improperly influence what content gets seen. Apparently they did social media deep dives that you had to consent to, to apply.