Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
They are the army of workers who man Facebook's front line, tasked with removing offensive and terror-related material from the internet giant's site.
But a Mail on Sunday investigation has discovered the multi-billion pound social networking site employs hundreds of young Filipinos – some with limited English skills – who work gruelling shifts and say they earn just £1.81 an hour.
They are forced to decide in seconds whether or not to delete videos, pictures and posts which are too graphic or violent.
Staff face being sacked if they fail to meet strict quotas that mean they have to assess hundreds of extreme posts every shift.
Source: The Daily Mail
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday June 01 2017, @05:51PM (1 child)
No arguments there... What context is missing, or could be missing from this story? What is the goal here, when attempting to mislead. As i said in my earlier comment, the DM always has a political or commercial agenda for their shit and misleading reports.
I have rejected many stories from the Daily Mail that have been submitted here, and have spent plenty of time looking through their stories for where they're trying to push an agenda because I find it interesting and insightful to actually follow the threads, rather than just go fuck them, they're FAKE NEWS/Daily Heil ... It's important to understand the how and the why this should be dismissed, not just shooting the messenger. I'm just not seeing it here.
Other sources have not confirmed it because it was an original report by the DailyMail only 4 days ago, and plenty of other media outlets are too busy giving Zuckerberg all the praise in the world right now, for the foundation, free basics and has eyes on him right now to make sure 'fake news' stays off his website... Zuckerberg is in the same spot as Gates has been... Criticism of the business practices and ethics get downplayed, because he's a humanitarian genius trying to make the world a better place by getting third world kids to learn MS Office/Facebook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @06:56PM
Uh, what? Because you followed that up with an argument:
I don't know what's missing. Because I'm part of the 99.9% who don't know enough about this topic to say what is missing. This is about "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you." What I do know is that leaving out the important stuff is their standard operating procedure. So the question isn't "what did they leave out?" The question is "why should I believe they have the whole story this time?"