I assume that every single person who still works at Meta has done that personal calculus and decided that they fall on the "this is fucking amazing, important work" side.
And the five or six HNers that bought the Apple goggles.
“Yes, we all know it, and we keep those app installed regardless“.
Maybe a company with those standards should not get our business. Oops, no wait, maybe they mean the Friedman Doctrine standards? In that case they are entitled to do any and every thing to make a profit. No matter what the harm.
[edit: add last two sentences]
So that when I say that they really do have a zero tolerance policy for anyone using their internal systems to violate user privacy, it's not because I'm eager to defend them. It's just true (at least, it was when I was there). There are internal systems dedicated to making sure you have access to what you need to do your job, and absolutely nothing else. All content you interact with through internal tools is monitored and logged. If you get caught trying to use whatever access your job gives you for anything other than doing your job, security immediately escorts you out of the building. This is drilled into new hires early and often. For everything Meta gets wrong, they really do take this seriously.
If Facebook were designed with a different set of incentives that prioritized the user, fostered positive engagement, and better respected individual's privacy and data sovereignty - setting a better standard for the whole industry - I feel there wouldn't be all this fuss today about banning social media accounts.
Same for "Meta reads your E2E whatsapp messages". Meta does many things, is probably massively net negative for civilisation, but it doesn't do that.
All advertiser support agents were given super-read on all profiles & pages, and I never once observed a CSR being questioned on their use of this access in any way.
When did FaceBook make the world not-worse?
The man is without any redeeming qualities.
If you truly want to atone for your sins, you have a long way to go. I don't blame you for having worked there, I've worked at places that are only a little better than Meta (which is hard considering Meta is at the absolute bottom of the entire ladder, including Peter Thiel companies, thanks to Meta's sheer scale of carnage). But its time to completely come to terms with the reality, rather than stopping halfway to try and feel better about your resume.
The irony is meta wants to implement verification to protect kids. Meanwhile it's doing everything it can to exploit them most at every single level for profit and for the love of the game. Billions of dollars, the world's most advanced computers all dedicated for it
They just got fired for "piercing the veil". They committed the sin of bringing attention to the invasion of privacy.
Mostly, I'm just surprised that anybody would be naive enough to take a camera provided by Facebook into a sexual encounter and expect anything else.
There was an example in the article where a user’s glasses kept recording the user’s wife after he took them off. That’s bad but on the user, not Facebook.
Seems similar to a situation where someone takes nudes of someone without their consent and then sends them off to a lab to be printed. The lab isn’t doing anything illegal or unethical printing them when they ask the user “are these legal” and the user replies “yes.” Unless you want to stop photo printers from ever printing nudes, I think the responsibility is on the user, not the firm.
And people do record porn for personal viewing. They probably didn't know it was being viewed by meta employees as well.
1. Meta AFAIR paid/compensated people — contractors or recruited via ads — to have them submit their data. There are strict privacy protocol and reviews in place to distinguish data use in these cases vs gen public. This is not to say the process is perfect, but if these users are gen public, I would be very shocked.
2. Hiring contractors to submit data is a more controlled environment VS recruitment of gen pub via ads to submit data, but the former has more well understood privacy disclosures than the latter. This means in practice asking contractors to wear glasses and "move around their surroundings naturally and do things" goes well with basically the privacy practice "the data your are submitting we can view and use all of it for purpose X and nothing but X". BUT this framing is with ad based recruited people — which are general users who willingly submit data — is much much harder. My suspicion is they are running ad based recruiting in general public and while those users may have signed a privacy statement it is very surprising that they did not tighten the privacy practices around the use of the data and who has access.
(I do think these smart glasses are super creepy and I'm not defending Meta's data collection practices.)
> but we don't know the real reason.
We know the course of events. We have brains and can reason. You really expect Meta to come out and say "Yep, we fired them because they whistleblowed"
> I'm not defending Meta's data collection practices
No but you certainly seem to be over here quibbling about epistemology in the defense of Meta
They don't boil live kittens either, I believe. Doesn't seem relevant though.
The problem here (other than Meta being Meta) is people assuming Meta isn't permanently operating in bad faith. I'm just surprised anybody into tech to the extent they'd buy first-gen VR glasses would be surprised at Meta doing Meta things. That's all, I guess.
If you read, eg, Buffet, he makes the point that a manager donating to a political cause, whether the Heritage Foundation or, God forbid, something as far right as the SPLC, makes that donation with money that otherwise accrues to the shareholders. The manager therefore creates an agency problem, where he might pursue his own interests at the expense of the owners.
If they are aligned, the manager can retain the earnings and create a dividend for the owners, such that they can then make the donation directly. If they are not aligned with the owners, they are redistributing wealth.
I am not surprised that the Left advocates for backdoor wealth redistribution, but I would prefer they be honest about it.
I'm pretty sure it's not just the Left team that advocates for bribes (sorry lobbying) to politicians. I don't think that's a very commonly held understanding of wealth redistribution either...but this argument you present isn't very coherent which is somewhat expected so I guess keep on keeping on..
But that can't be the problem. They're collecting the data that users send them. To avoid collecting it despite the expressed wishes of the user, they'd need to be able to recognize it as untouchable.
And recognizing the data is the exact problem that this African firm was hired to help with. What do you want Meta to do?
> And recognizing the data is the exact problem that this African firm was hired to help with. What do you want Meta to do?
This is written as if logically exhaustive, but it misses the very obvious alternative that none of these videos should have been reviewed by a human at all (aka no reason to "recognize it as untouchable"; they're all untouchable).
If you want to get stricter and talk about collecting at all, Meta already has that solution too, by leaving the video in the user's camera roll. Let the user manually add the video to the Meta AI app or whatever if they want to share it with others there.
No, taking that approach would mean that when someone sends you data that you aren't supposed to collect, you collect it anyway. This is the opposite of what was suggested above.
It incorporates by reference the general Facebook privacy policy. The relevant subsection is here: https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy?subpage=4.subpage.12...
Facebook reserves the right to share any information they have about you with their contractors, for purposes including but not limited to:
- investigating suspicious activity
- improving the functionality of their products
- providing technical infrastructure services
- analyzing how their products are used
- conducting research
That was in reference to the original story, that human annotation is happening on videos that no one knew were getting reviewed. If you want to talk about not collecting at all, well:
> If you want to get stricter and talk about collecting at all, Meta already has that solution too, by leaving the video in the user's camera roll. Let the user manually add the video to the Meta AI app or whatever if they want to share it with others there.
OpenAI had them classify CSAM, so Sama fired them as a client back in 2022. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
We're 4 years on, 3 years since that report broke. Not a single thing has improved about how tech companies operate.
It’s a terrible job, I wouldn’t want to do it, but someone needs to. Perhaps one day, AI will be accurate enough to not need it, but even then you need someone to process complaints and waivers (like someone’s home photos being inaccurately flagged).
If script writers gave the company this name in a fictionalization it would be rejected as too on the nose.
Great! Now do people with smart TVs and people with smart phones
I went to the beach, jet skiing. One of the guys had Meta glasses.
I liked the footage.
A Kenyan workers' organisation alleges Meta's decision was caused by the staff speaking out.
Meta says it's because Sama did not meet its standards, a criticism Sama rejects ...Name a more iconic duo.
I do not care which country the outsourcing company is in. When criminals go global, protection whistleblowers should go global too.
Not that I am remotely interested in defending Meta, or optimistic that they would proactively address privacy issues. But I don't feel that sympathetic to the outsourcing company here either.
I don't know what happened behind the scenes. I'm just going off what is said and not said in the article. If I were whistleblowing about something like this, I would take pains to describe what measures I took internally before going public. I didn't see any of that here.
EDIT: Look, to be clear, I think it's bad that naive or uninformed people are buying video recorders from Meta and unintentionally having their private lives intruded on by a company that, based on its history, clearly can't be trusted to be a helpful, transparent partner to customers on privacy. I think it's good that the media is giving people a reminder of this. I think it's good that the sources said something, even though the consequences they suffered seem inevitable. But to me, there is nothing essentially new to be learned here, and I don't know what can or should be done to improve the situation. I think for now, the best thing for people to do is not buy Meta hardware if they have any desire for privacy. Maybe there are laws that could help, but what should be in the laws exactly? It's not obvious to me what would work. I suspect that some of the reason people buy these products is for data capture, and that will sometimes lead to sensitive stuff being recorded. What should the rules be around this and who should decide? Personally I don't know.
Why reflexively defend a massive tech corporation caught repeatedly violating the law?
Congratulations, you have a bright future in politics and/or tech CEOing.
> Meta said this was for the purpose of improving the customer experience, and was a common practice among other companies.
Am I reading this correctly?! This is probably the weirdest statement I've read on the internet in twenty years.
Which is why I'd never touch a person tech device from Meta.
Their entire DNA is written to exploit their users for profit. In my judgement, they literally cannot and will never consider those issues as anything other than something to obscure to keep people unaware of the depth of the exploitation.
Probably this is people asking the glasses something about what they see and the glasses uploading video for classification to generate an answer.
People think it is "just AI" so are not very concerned about privacy.
The thing that really gets me is that internally there are 4 levels of data 1 being public domain shit (the sky is blue) up to 4 which is private user data, or something that is sensitive if leaked or shared.
I was told that by default all user data is level 4, as in if you do anything without decent approval, you're insta fired. There are many stories about at least one person a month during boot camp accessing user data and getting escorted out of the building within hours.
The part where I worked, in visual research, we had to jump through a years worth of legal hoops to get permission to record videos in public. We had to build an anonymisation pipeline, bullet proof audit trail, delete as much data as possible, with auto delete if something went wrong.
We had rigid rule about where that data could be stored and _who_ could access it. We were not allowed to share "wild" footage (ie data that might have the hint of anyone who hadn't signed a contract) for annotation because it would be given to a third party. THe public datasets we released all had traceable people, locations all with legal waivers signed.
Then I hear they just started fucking hosing private data to annotators to _train_ on? without any fucking basic controls at all? Just shows that whenever Zuck or monetsization want something, the rules don't apply.
I look forward to that entire industry collapsing in on it's self.
⸻
1. The first rhyme that came to mind was bow, but I realized there was a problem with that example.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/row#dictionary-en...
:)
Or they might start scanning for "problematic" behavior, a bit like the Apple CSAM fingerprinting initiative.
So not one part of me would ever buy Meta glasses (or the Snap glasses before that). You simply don't have sufficient control over the recordings and big tech companies can't be trusted, as we've witnessed from outsourced workers sharing explicit images. And I bet that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I honestly don't understand why anyone would get these and trust Meta to manage the risks.
Things like audio scanning your living space using those Alexa smart speakers with ultrasonics to get an image of not only everything in your space, but where you are in that space as well.
That technological use case only came out within the last five or so years, maybe closer to eight. Either way I could see that coming before it became a thing just because ultrasound imaging of your unborn child is a thing ultrasound imaging of the sea floor is a thing so why wouldn’t ultrasound imaging of your living space be a thing by a company who wants to know what you buy.
I never ever ever had Alexa I only ever had a Google home because I got it for free with GPM but I almost never used it because I hated the idea of it always listening.
I already regret Wi-Fi because they figured out now how to look through walls with that.
At this scale, this sound like some insider joke contract made up only to make some hustle on the side capitalizing with stock options on the possibility of adhoc news trading bots glitching out on the keyword, here "x.com/sama" signals.
So it doesn’t surprise me that Meta didnt renew/cancelled a contract that is a net negative for them. Arguing over the reason seems fruitless as no reason is needed per the terms of the contract (I assume since breach of contract wasn’t brought up by the sub).
Meta isn’t lying, you should assume other companies are doing it too, Tesla did it with their cameras, and assume others like any company has access to your camera, I would even assume CCTV cameras too. It’s why for anything sensitive, try to use open source stacks, you might lose some of the features, but it’s a needed compromise.
Because nobody knows how to put a dot of nail polish on an led they don't want seen, right?
> Am I reading this correctly?! This is probably the weirdest statement I've read on the internet in twenty years.
It's total fantasy. I've worked in big tech. Casually uploading and providing company/contractor access to non-redacted intimate photos or pictures of the insides of people's homes vaguely "for the purpose of improving the customer experience" would not pass even a surface-level privacy or data-protection review anywhere I've ever worked. Do Meta even read what they are saying?
Hell, I know of a major firm that decided QA was not needed for their trust and safety process.
Another common issue will be SEA Arabic speakers tasked with labelling Middle Eastern Arabic content, because accents and cultural dialects are not a thing.
I’ve had people at FAANG firms cry on my shoulder, because they couldn’t get access to engineering resources at their own firms.
There was the famous case of meta executives overriding T&S policy and telling them that what content was news worthy during the Boston bombing. On a separate incident, they told their team that cartel violence was not newsworthy when friends in London complained about it.
When you say this is fantasy, what do you mean precisely?
> Am I reading this correctly?!
I'm reminded of Bo Burnham's wonderful "That Funny Feeling" from 2021's "Inside", where one of the absurd examples he offers in the lyrics is:
There it is again, that funny feeling
That funny feeling
Reading Pornhub's terms of service ...edit 2: OK, I see what you mean. But I'm wondering if it should be possible to consent to this via T&C. Basically the same issue as with many online services, turned up to 11, sure. And it involves OTHER people, who have not consented.
Stuff like this used to be outrage fuel even when it was more of a social experiment, e.g. the documentary "We live in public" or the "Big brother" TV show. By now, I'm sure there have been millions of influencers doing similar things, but it's very much not considered normal?
Streaming to an unknown number of employees might be considered different from streaming to the public, sure.
But the core question here is whether there's informed consent, and, IMO also, if it should be possible to consent to this when the other party is a company like Meta and the pretext is not deliberately seeking attention (like influencers and streamers do).
edit, clarified social media comparison
I know our culture is so supremely fucked at this point that wearing corporate surveillance goggles during intimate moments could somehow be normalized, but holy shit. How did people get so trusting?
but i do agree that people just have become too trusting with our tech overlords, and its that trust that makes them continue to do shit like this over and over.
… although I really extend that to why are you wearing an internet connected camera that is obviously going to be monitored by Meta.
Of course, anyone who opened a newspaper in the last 10 years or so would know better, but I can definitively see some people not giving a fuck about it.
I never understood the appeal of upskirt pictures. But I think that taking videos of non-consenting participants/victims is the current version of the upskirt photo craze.
Given the size and nature of Meta's business, I would assume they would have better systems in place. SWEs should only have access to PII with explicit consent from users/customers e.g. support tickets.
Especially someone going through boot camp. Do they have access to de-anonymized user data during training?
Shit, at my last company I had to jump through so many hoops to access user data even with consent from the customer.
They did when I was there. every time you got close to user data an "interstitial" would pop up asking you for a ticket number and justification. There were a bunch of tools that ran searching for people accessing user data.
For example in boot camp you'd create a page that pulled your profile details. this was to introduce the idea of "ents" (the API that manages the social graph) and mercurial. You could, if you wanted to then traverse your friend graph. as soon as you did that, it'd trigger one the automated rules and your account would be suspended and you'd be yeeted within hours.
The point was, if you were doing something legitimate it was fine, but if you stepped out of line, the automated systems would find out and fire you on the stop.
also as everything is done through remote dev boxes, _everything_ is recorded (along with all the files on your laptop, and the regular screenshots, plus all the browser history and keystrokes) Data exfiltraition is super hard, hence why there are hardly any "angry nerd extorts girl" type stories. Its not because meta isn't full of angry nerds, it because its really really difficult to get at user data without getting caught.
Its not a mistake that this data got into contractor hands, it was a decision that took lots of time, numerous legal reviews and signoff from Zuck himself.
You are the frog being boiled.
The latter is literally illegal, at least in my country and I hope in any civilized country. If your point is that there's no difference between glasses and other forms of creep cams and the glasses should be illegal too, I concur!
Aren’t there countries that make it mandatory to blot out faces of people on videos if they didn’t consent?
There is no expectation of privacy in public.
In the US at least, any private homeowner/renter can deny entry to their property, barring legal warrants and exceptional circumstances. A business can have a policy, and is generally legally protected as long as the policy is 1) equally applied, and 2) does not violate ADA... A court would have to weigh in if glasses are allowed or not for ADA... but I suspect there's already a case where a movie theater banned such glasses and they would probably(?) win, since such individuals could be expected to have non-recording glasses.
I do not remember every single person I see on the street. What makes it Ok for some guy who will also forget me to create a stored, persistent, AI processed set of videos of me?
I do find the idea of a glasses version of an action cam quite cool, but we are talking about smart glasses from Meta here, which is a different thing.
We are talking about a network of streaming cameras moving around, filming.These videos are stored, still without any specifics about a purpose or when the data will be deleted.
Besides, the filmed people do not choose or consent to be filmed, they might not even be aware that they are filmed. This is not like a phone where you at least have a chance to see it. The person doing the filming chooses to film. Or they might not be aware they are still filming. They might also be one update away from always on. If Amazon did it with Alexa, Meta can do it with the glasses.
Of course, there are CCTV, but, at least in Europe, their use is very specific. You have to be informed about who to contact about the data, as well as the purpose of the recording and how long it will be stored. There too the scope is much more limited than a random guy filming people without their consent.
The collection is one problem. The usage is another. We know they are used to train AI for unspecified use, generative AI? Something else? Under the GDPR the purpose of the collection should be known, but in that context it is extremely murky.
Based on existing technology, it would be possible for them to use facial recognition on these videos to track individuals, building profiles as they go, including location. These profiles could even be linked to the identity of people who have been tagged in photos before. While it might be extremely difficult now, it might be possible later. Making it possible might even be what the AI training is about. The data exist, and it is unclear how long it will be kept, or whether the purpose of processing will change.
It would be bad enough if it was any company, but we are talking about Meta, a company that brought us the Cambridge analytica scandal. A company that knowingly let its users be scammed by ads for profit. Profit over ethics has been part of their DNA from the start, not an exception.
It's the same with phones. I know blind people who have been harassed for holding their phones up to things as though they are taking pictures, but in fact they're using the camera on their phone to render signage legible to them, or having their phone (or a person on the other end) read it.
Banning this in a way that doesn't in practice cause problems for visually impaired people would be difficult. It might also be difficult to do in a way that doesn't harm, for instance, accountability for cops who are acting in public.
The impulse to "ban" is sometimes a bit naive imo.
Because it is the natural expansion of the quote attributed to Upton Sinclair:
> Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires
If you insist on the glasses, wear a fake GoPro.
You can discard them after tagging+using them for learning.
Safety and user pain is a part of tech which seems largely ignored, even on sites like HN.
I really have no idea why this ignorance prevails; commenters seem to genuinely be unaware of what goes on in Trust and Safety processes.
I mean, most users would complain about content moderation, but their experience would be miles ahead of what most of humanity enjoys when it comes to responsiveness.
I believe this lack of knowledge, examples, and case history is causing a blind spot in tech centric conversations when it comes to the causes of the Techlash.
Unfortunately this backlash is also the perfect cover for authoritarian government action - they come across as responsive to voters while also reigning in firms that are more responsive to American citizens and government officers than their own.
But it's not really a fascism thing. While fascism does love the oppression of women, and the current crop of fascists have a notable connection to the Epstein case, this is a lot more boring.
Sam Altman's not a fascist, he's a wet noodle who sucks up to the Trump administration for money. He's not even good at it. The way his company handled CSAM does cast aspersions on Altman & the accusations from his sister, but all other evidence suggests he's just a moron acting recklessly. Not identifying the problem ahead of time, and acting poorly in response.
In the case of Meta. We know who Zuckerberg is. The company got it's start as, in crude terms, a sex pest website. The original "Facemash" website forcibly taken down by Harvard. This is not some new consequence of this turn to fascism, Zuckerberg's always been like this, and the actions taken against him were clearly not enough to avoid the company culture following his precedent.
Disagree, not on average. There was a non-trivially higher % of decisions made based on "what's good for the customer" or "what's good for the product" or "I would be ashamed to do this" and a lower % of decisions made based on "what maximizes profit in the next quarter". I think that is more ethical. To take it to an extreme, using slave labor because it's good for the customer is more ethical than using slave labor to maximize profit in the next quarter.
Friends in industry who are analyzing consumer smart TV sensor data at scale tell me otherwise.
Aren’t there already posts and articles on how to ensure that TVs don’t farm information from us?
The danger with creep glasses is that many people don't know what they are, they can be used with the LED disabled so they're perfect for filming people without their knowledge, and "these are prescription glasses" has a good chance of working. In a place with a "no recording devices" policy, "could you put that gopro away" has wide social acceptance/support, "take those glasses off" less so.
I don't think ostracizing users of Meta Glasses (or Google Glass before that) is the answer.
But I get the problems of hidden cameras.
So did the Meta's LLM training model as well as the contractor across the globe reviewing your footage.
i think its a mixture of fetish (panty-fetish is a whole craze in some parts of the world...) and voyeurism, like the appeal _is_ the lack of consent. I recently saw on reddit there was a whole deluge of non-consensual porn being uploaded to a certain site and once that news broke, visits to that site spiked. I think that just says a lot about society as a whole.
The secondary issue is that it's generally frowned upon to make your employees view nudity in the workplace. Are there extenuating circumstances here? No, we have no evidence there are any extenuating circumstances here.
There’s probably an opt out / opt in clause somewhere in the terms and conditions, which makes it feasible for Meta (and other firms) to use this data.
We could also toss vibe coded mess on top of this and probably get closer to the truth.
That could be moderation, or it could be labelling new examples for training/validation
It being scripted doesn't really change much, but yes, I think your tangent is correct.
I wanted to illustrate the shift in what's considered "normal", fully acknowledging that a scripted show catering to voyeurism is different from the situation discussed here. Completely different, just related.
The "outrage fuel" that I meant was that some people consider it immoral to incentivize people to overstep boundaries of privacy, decency and human dignity.
Staged or not, the selling point of the show was that it was about "regular people".
I'm aware that this small and short-lived public discussion seems antiquated today, that's why I mentioned it.
> some people consider it immoral to incentivize people to overstep boundaries of privacy, decency and human dignity
I'd be one of those people. Mr Beast is a cancer on our society and the fact that he is the most popular YouTuber says volumes about our society as a whole (again--never watched, but I've read enough). Though I imagine much of his stunts are staged as well, I think it just goes along with what you're saying about Big Brother.
I don't think this kind of public discussion is antiquated (assuming you're talking about this meta-discussion in this comment thread), I'd say it's just rare to see unless you look for it (HN for example). And I'd also argue that those who criticized pop culture were always in the minority (almost by definition). I think it's a good callout regardless.
There's also nothing stopping us from stigmatizing the use of smartphones in public. Even a slight discouragement of it would be progress. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
is this a Western/American thing about no shame regarding one's body in public places in the presence of other people, be it male or female?
I can never imagine this happening in my country.
And the people who act annoyed because you are disturbing their film set as if they are James Cameron are the funniest.
Security cameras afaik usually don't record audio, but all phones can. And they don't even need to be pointed in any specific direction.
On a separate note, (and this is a genuine question) are you by any chance aware the term Non-consensual intimate imagery / NCII?
I am beginning to suspect that the average HN goer isn’t aware of the scope and scale of the Trust and Safety problem.
Smart glasses, however, are always aimed at whatever the wearer is looking at. They may or may not be recording (note the reports of people hiding the LED indicators), and at a fair distance could easily be mistaken for a normal pair.
The general populace is much more likely to notice the former recording rather than the latter.
Just because you don’t notice it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
However, this is still a different thing than smart glasses which can further be segmented into who designed the smart glasses.
It's the camera of their smartphone.
Not sure if it's ON though.
I mean it's a locker room... it's a space meant for changing clothes and showering.
i'd never step out to a place where a stranger could see me, without a towel or wet shorts covering my private bits.
Different situation.
Facebook has to do CSAM moderation because it's a publishing platform. People will post CSAM on facebook, so they must do moderation.
And "just don't have facebook" isn't a solution because every publication of any sort has to deal with this problem; Any newspaper accepting mail has this problem. (Albeit to a much more scaled down version) People were nailing obscene things to bulletin boards for all recorded history.
---
In contrast, OpenAI has no such problem. It did not have CSAM pushed onto it, it actively collected such data itself. It could have, at any point before and after, simply stopped scraping all of the web indiscriminately and switched to using more curated sources of scraped data.
The downside would be "worse LLMs" or "LLMs being created later", which is a perfectly acceptable compromise.
---
This is not to say that genuine content flagging firms have no reason to curate such data & build tools to automatically flag content before human moderators have to. (But then they also shouldn't be outsourcing this and traumatizing contract workers for $2-3 an hour)
But OpenAI is not such a firm. It's a general AI company.
Is there an hourly rate at which this should be acceptable?
The current support systems for police in this subject are already insufficient. Facebook's treatment of their moderation staff is abhorrent. The point of including the pay figure is to further illustrate just how damning this subcontracting practice is.
Not only is there an acceptable market rate for trauma, it’s sometimes competitive and requires licensing.
^ i originally said "triage doctors" but i meant the resident ER doc.
They have access to better counselling and are ostensibly trained for the job. But there are still suicides.
The core Facebook product is users' posts. It's not possible to separate those two. Nor can one downscale Facebook in a way that stops the problem; The aforementioned "Facebook has had this problem because it's a problem we've had since the medieval days of a town bulletin board"
With OpenAI, the way ChatGPT was built and user submissions are separate things. The GPT models could have been have been trained without this mess. OpenAI could be more selective in what data it scrapes.
While OpenAI cannot stop users sending god knows what in their prompt text and images, OpenAI can choose to not interact with that data beyond the minimum legal retention, by e.g. not using it for training the next generation of models. This would massively downscale the problem.
AI output is another such problem, where A) Maybe this'd be less of a problem if they didn't recklessly include a bunch of CSAM into the training data by accident, and B) LLMs just aren't the kind of fundamental human right that "having a public opinion" is. It would be fine if they were less good, invented years later, or even not invented at all.
The main counterargument to the latter has been the "But China is inventing evil AI" spiel, which is fairly weak. If China builds an orphaned baby crushing machine, we do not need to build an orphaned baby crushing machine of our own. (And the reality is that China is only chasing AI so aggressively because the west does. They're reasonable people, it would have been entirely possible for both the west and China to make a mutual "no orphan crushing" agreement and just accept slower rollout of technology. This is exactly what has been done with human genetic engineering, and China did in fact enforce these norms.)
I guess that they process billions of images every day.
I don’t think they’re getting csam from scraping (thankfully, I expect there isnt much publicly available csam).
They aren’t as big as facebook, but they must have this functionality or many users will be hurt.
You've just thrown the garbage over your fence. Instead of OpenAI contracting Sama to classify CSAM, the "Curators" have to.
At the end of the day, someone needs to classify it. If you say the platforms need to, and they miss some, and it ends up in OAI training data, OAI is going to be the entity paying the prices.
Any website that allows user to upload videos needs some sort of service that can identify and report CSAM.
This is of course incredibly illegal, but megacorps (by valuation) and oligarchy members are above the law so who cares. I assume there could be a regulatory framework which can make this legal for an extremely specific purpose, but there is zero change that OpenAI was part of this/abiding by this in 2022, absolutely none.
The correct way to organize social media is in federated way. Each server only holds on average a few hundred or few thousand people. Server moderators should be legally responsible for content on their server. CSAM on social media will be 100x suppressed because banning people is way easier on small servers.
Not many moderators will have to look at CSAM because the structure of the system makes is unappealing to even try sharing CSAM, knowing you will be immediately blocked.
Westeners are too expensive and unwilling to do it. AI is a business model that requires poverty and extreme inequality to function. Yes other businesses do that too, but they don't claim it's a solution to everything while it actually has very special human requirements.
There are more reasons why these jobs are located in developing countries, it's not only the price of labour. Imagine for a second, these annotations would have to be done in the US. The public outrage would probably be audible across the Atlantic. This is another form of imperialism.
Granted the latter is kinda happening distantly on YouTube where you can’t talk about “ suicide “ so everyone self censors…
you must be extremy priviledge to think that way, even as EU I would be glad to do it for the minimum salary. For your info, a terrible job for most human is a job that is extremly hard physically at the point of destroying your health. That said, like many people, I would find it much more interesting than many boring job. [If someone read this, please hire me for this, in exchange I would work the 5 first hour for free]
Can tell you that my urge to take photos/record drastically dips around other people. Particularly if it were meant for any sort of commercial exploitation. Stephenson called people wired for max indiscriminate data collection/processing "gargoyles". Personally I prefer glassholes.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-borg-of...
That way we can figure out what it is that’s confusing or unclear and then see it you find it has any moral moral significance.
No, i don't think I've heard about NCII before, and Trust and Safety sounds like some corporate PR whitewashing term to me.
2> NCII: Years ago, I was scoping reddit to identify content that was harmful from an Indian perspective. By far the largest category was NCII. This could range from morphed images, to intimate images reshared, to images from their socials reshared in thirst communities. This included images of underage children.
Removing NCII is rough. First the victim has to be willing to come forward and get over the shame. Then they have to deal with a near impossible system and get someone to help. The more conservative the nation, the less likely the support networks will be forgiving or helpful. Finally, once the data is out there, it’s going to be reflected across multiple sites which are in international jurisdictions.
This is one of the situations where, I fear, your life is simply hosed.
Korea is another country which has a severe problem with NCII, and I believe they even instituted laws against deepfaked porn.
>PR whitewashing: Heh. Well thats the division that deals with online safety, fraud, content moderation, policy and the rest. I believe eBay was the first firm to use that term when they were handling fraud.
The issue is when you go from fantasy to actually enacting it, which is usually when you earn the epithet of “Creep”.
Also, why make a throwaway for this line? I take it you haven’t heard of NCII?
That's a tradeoff you can choose to make, but you need to enter into it with open eyes.
It doesn't matter how many are shared but how many are viewed. On a small server community policing works just fine, bad actors are easier and faster to block and to top it off, the smaller reach of each server makes it unprofitable to target multiple serves, fish for their weak points. etc - the dirty jobs become unprofitable which is what matters most.
With the help of AI, small players can do a better job at removing CSAM.
No it's not. It's certainly not my choice. No one asked me if it's okay for Facebook to distribute CSAM because you insist it would be worse if it didn't.
And therefore anything that is remotely questionable will be blocked. Not just kiddie porn. Pissed off a local business with a bad review? Blocked.
Child abusers are twisted people, and I really don’t care much what happens to them, but making it impossible for them to use the internet means sterilizing the whole thing.
This is already the case. There is a lot of lawful, useful, medical or educational content that is actively censured on social medias because they include words or pictures of organs while same social medias actively encourage and develop algorithm to push underage girls (and possibly boys) posting pictures of themselves in sexual poses, attires and context.
Big tech and social media networks love and push CSAM, they just hide the genitals but the content really is the same.
But that's not possible in today's oligopoly of social media. An invisible algorithm will ban you, and there is no way back, and few alternates. Big Social Media is way worse from a sanitizing perspective than some federated social media.
Moderators need to actually understand the context of the picture/video, which requires knowledge of culture and language of the people sharing the pictures. It's really difficult to do that without hiring moderators from every culture in the world.
But small federated servers can often align along real world human social networks, so it's easier for the server admin to understand what should be removed.
My impression is it would take Manhattan-Project levels of effort and funds to come close to "solving" this problem, especially without someone getting on a watchlist for having a telehealth-first primary care provider insurace plan and asking for advice on their toddler's chickenpox.
Human review? Meta has small armies worth of content moderators already that tend to burn out with psychological problems and have a suicide rate where you're probably better off going to fight in a real war. (This includes workers hired by Sama in Kenya, to link back to the OP.)
I will reluctantly grant Meta that they're up against a really hard problem here.
No it isn't. Small servers often don't have paid security or moderation, are run in anonymous fashion, and have no profit motive that can even be used to incentivize them against hosting illegal content.
That's visible when it comes to porn. There's a million bootleg porn sites on the internet hosted that show off illegal content. The only site that was ever forced to curate its content was Pornhub, because they're sufficiently large, work in a jurisdiction that has laws and can be held accountable. From a content moderation standpoint going after a million web forums is an absolute pain in the ass compared to going after Facebook.
Which is the first argument any decentralization advocate always brings up (and they're correct to do so), censorship is harder and evasion of law enforcement easier when dealing with a network of independent actors.
You now have 100x the total human effort for mods to review and ban him.
So if you want to send someone to jail, just talk your way into joining their server, upload some illegal content, and report them for it?
> Not many moderators will have to look at CSAM because the structure of the system makes is unappealing to even try sharing CSAM, knowing you will be immediately blocked.
Why would someone join a server with active moderation if they wanted to share CSAM with their social media friends?
They would seek out one of those servers that was set up specifically for those groups, where it was known to be a safe space.
This is what many people don't get about federated networks: The people in those little servers DGAF if you block them. They want to be surrounded by their likeminded friends away from the rules of some bigger service like Facebook or Twitter. Federated social media is the perfect platform for them because they can find someone who set up a server in some other country with their own idea of rules and join that, not be subject to the regulations of mainstream social media.
It also makes it relatively easy to avoid, as server admins share blocklists. I know a dozen servers offhand that i'd block if i ran another fediverse server.
Fosstodon fediverse server doesn't have this issue, for example.
I replied this way because the way you wrote it, it sounds like an indictment of a system that's designed to avoid advertisers getting user profiles, over all else.
The problem is the people who participate in this (the illegal and immoral), and not "the network."
Anecdotally, when I was a young adult I was a volunteer moderator for a large forum. We got reports of CSAM several times a month and had a process for escalating and reporting it to the FBI IC3 - we retained a lot of information about the users that posted it.
One of the administrators of the website mentioned to me that over the years since the inception of the forum, they'd reported almost a thousand incidents of CSAM distribution - and the FBI followed up with them to get information less than 10 times in total.
Actually companies should be bullied about privacy and copyright so they are unable to share any contents at a scale with 3rd parties. Thus they have to solve it on their own and forced to realize their business model is shit.
Big “citation needed” here. My bet is that Meta have far better moderation systems than any other social media company on the planet.
That's more what i got from that pull-quote. I know a company that has hundreds of individual forums, and those are all moderated quickly and correctly (last i heard). They're moderated so effectively they often get DDoS by Russian IPs for banning users for scam posts from that country.
You are just too priviledge to understand people: many people would be glad do do it for the minimum wage, I would fight to have that oportunity (I live in west EU).
Chicken/egg. How do you expect that AI to be able to detect CSAM without appropriate training, which requires appropriately classified training data?
I know a local blog that pre-approves every comment. He lets a lot of stuff through, because he lets people be dumbasses. If he were personally liable, the conversation would get a lot quieter.
Because of course the people congregating to do illegal stuff online are going to do it in your jurisdiction where prosecution is guaranteed
We're all aware that it is possible to run a private website, forum, chat server (irc-like or discord-like), including "federated" servers, but not federate? in fact, Element, a chat client, has a parent company that even sells "completely private, encrypted chat", which will never "leak."
I'd much rather have leaky CSAM federated servers than every bad actor behind a VPN. I don't want to see the shit, but i can null route the entire domain and be done with it, or i can send links to my local authorities and let them deal with it.
A similar thing is racism, would you rather have someone be openly racist, or just privately? This was said, i believe, about Joe Biden, about why people tend to trust Trump more, since he wears everything on his sleeve, and Biden speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Like how Carlin said Clinton won people over by saying "Hi folks, i'm completely full of shit and what do you think about that? and folks said, "well, at least he's honest."
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
and authorities will know if there's new CSAM, and will crop the images and send it to the groups that track down where clothes came from, what the decor in the room means, if there's anything else identifiable. None of this is possible if it's underground and "non-federated."
I'd rather CSAM ceased to be a thing; but again, i'd much rather have idiots announcing it publicly than on an E2EE private network.
First responders/doctors/CPS investigators see the worst but they also have days where they make a difference. Save a life or multiple lives. I'm sure it's a huge part of what makes the job bearable, and to some meaningful.
I'm not discounting your point about high rates of suicide either. If anything, when you take away any good days, you're left, as a content moderator, with just seeing the worst of the world day in, day out, with nothing to make it meaningful. I'd suggest that's something we as a society should not tolerate as being an acceptable trade for the ability to share cat photos.
You think miners don't make a difference or save lives?
Do you think miners mining is saving lives in the same way that doctors saving lives is saving lives?
To continue the parents point, do you think miners derive a deep or powerful satisfaction from some of their mining work which might offer some of the heavy cost it has on them physically and emotionally?
Like what? It’s all there on Wikipedia, and for all of Wiki’s faults, I have trouble imagining what kind of useful, educational, medical information you will find on social media that is better than that.
Do we really have to give the benefit of the doubt to the agency that was literally running one of the largest CSAM distribution outlets in the world for years as a honeypot?
And I think what prevents miners to "derive a deep or powerful satisfaction from some of their mining work which might offset some of the heavy cost it has on them physically and emotionally" is not anything inherent in their work, but people thinking that only direct affect should be prestigious and satisfying and underapreciating the thankless background work to keep the lights on.
Same way people sneer at cleaning people or teachers and their meagre salaries and no respect, or domestic labor.
These are pretty clear laws established by a democratic government with a pretty good record for rule of law.
The fact is that simple scale means that there will always be something, no matter how abhorrent. Small scale doesn't change this, it just concentrates it.
Would you drive a car optimized for profit that didn't have those safety features? How about on a highway? Daily?
Demanding some perfect immediate magic response there is the equivalent of asking car manufacturers to prevent all deaths.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-f...
Here it's said that it's the users fault. I disagree. Completely. Most of these companies, staying on topic many of these companies have laid off the employees who tried to prevent things like this,
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/22/meta-layoffs-ai.html
https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-ai-safety-institute-will-be...
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dqd54wpEfjKJsJBk6/xai-s-grok...
The list of not even trying anymore goes on and on. Mechahitler was also fun
So yes, yes, let's do like we did with cars.
https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025-liter...
If you find Wikipedia too complicated, you probably aren’t looking up your medical diagnoses.
Of course, that was 60 years ago.
Eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
I guess "other forces were worse" can certainly be true, but then how low are we holding the bar?
Now consider that some of those smaller entities might not be even notionally interested in avoiding the existence of that specific type of content on their platform, and are small enough for regulators to be unaware of its existence?
Can you elaborate on what exactly is wrong there? Do you see the third alternative C and it's not the "whole choice"? Or are you saying A or B do not exist and therefore there's no choice? Please name C, or tell us why A or B don't exist (or aren't acceptable), or explain your view that doesn't fit into these options.
>That's a tradeoff you can choose to make
is not correct: It is a tradeoff that one specific person can choose to make, but not one that I or we can choose to make, because we don't control facebook. Mark Zuckerberg controls facebook. He alone can choose to make that tradeoff, or not, on behalf of society.
Yes, he alone can make the choice. Not you or I.
Care to address the actual issue?
What I and others are trying to tell you is that your obsessive focus on Facebook as if they are the root cause of the problem is incorrect. There is no magic solution I'm aware of because each of them have some sort of tradeoff.
The most extreme version of content moderation I can think of is that a human being examines and approves every single message of any kind before it is published, any image of a minor is banned because it's too hard to objectively define child porn (that still leaves the open question of how to determine if someone is a minor visually), and no accounts for anyone under the age of legal majority are allowed, as verified by a legal ID that is checked by a human being.
Even in that case, kids will find some way to get an account or just use their parent's account, and the door is cracked open again. And the pedophiles will just go elsewhere, probably using a service with significantly less resources available to attack the problem, which is probably worse than the status quo.
This doesn't even touch on the privacy concerns that most people would have with every message being reviewed.
As I said before, I would welcome you to share the solution that you imply exists which addresses every issue above.
> Content moderation is a general problem,
Easy to reform any problem in a more general manner. Doesn't make your discussion any less dishonest.
>As I said before, I would welcome you to share the solution that you imply exists which addresses every issue above.
It's not really my burden to come up with a solution. That's ridiculous. It's Facebook's problem, not mine. You haven't even disputed that they could not do a better job. Your argument was that it's better for the child porn to be on Facebook than smaller websites, which is specious at best.
You've decided that there's some relatively easy solution to a problem that existed before Facebook and will exist after Facebook that Facebook should be implementing to solve what appears to be an unsolvable problem to basically everyone else on earth, yet you have no ability to describe this solution and don't seem to have put much effort into thinking about it beyond assuming it exists.
No one is arguing that it's better for child porn to be anywhere. What myself and others have said is that there are tradeoffs to be made concerning content moderation, and you basically refuse to even contemplate the theoretical benefits and downsides of different approaches and their outcomes.
I don't know what your motivation is, whether you just have some irrational hatred of Facebook, are a zealot concerning child porn, both, or there's some other explanation for your obstinate ignorance, but attempting to talk to you appears to be a complete waste of time.
I never used these words either. That's where the dishonesty is. Look back at our thread, how many times have you done that? You ask me to define basic words and then don't respond when I do... everyone else on earth agrees with you? Just read this thread. There is literally someone else in this very thread here agreeing with me.
>No one is arguing that it's better for child porn to be anywhere
You did. You argued it's better to be on Facebook than on smaller sites and audaciously asked me how I could disagree?
> I don't know what your motivation is, whether you just have some irrational hatred of Facebook, are a zealot concerning child porn, both, or there's some other explanation for your obstinate ignorance, but attempting to talk to you appears to be a complete waste of time.
It's much more telling that you think those are the only two reasons why someone would think "Facebook should really do something about its child porn problem already."
>but attempting to talk to you appears to be a complete waste of time.
Good riddance
You don't use any words, other than repeatedly saying "Facebook should be solving this problem they created", so people have to fill in the gaps because that is a very strange perspective and you refuse to elaborate.
> That's where the dishonesty is. Look back at our thread, how many times have you done that? You ask me to define basic words and then don't respond when I do... everyone else on earth agrees with you? Just read this thread. There is literally someone else in this very thread here agreeing with me.
You don't define basic words, that's the issue.
I never said everyone agrees with me, and the one person "agreeing" with you is just as clueless about the pros and cons of a centralized vs distributed system.
> You did. You argued it's better to be on Facebook than on smaller sites and audaciously asked me how I could disagree?
I did not. You're either confusing me with someone else (and twisting their words) or just imagining messages, just like you're imagining that you've diligently responded to every request for clarification on your ill-defined yet adamant stance.
> It's much more telling that you think those are the only two reasons why someone would think "Facebook should really do something about its child porn problem already."
Again, feel free to elaborate.
> Good riddance
Likewise
Thinking that Facebook should solve its own child pornography problem is not a weird perspective at all. What is weird about that? What do I need to elaborate on? That's my position. Are you saying it's unfounded?
>You don't define basic words, that's the issue.
I did, you asked me to and didn't respond.
>I never said everyone agrees with me, and the one person "agreeing" with you is just as clueless about the pros and cons of a centralized vs distributed system.
Oh, excuse me, not everyone, just "basically everyone else on earth". Again, incredibly dishonest on your part.
>I did not. You're either confusing me with someone else (and twisting their words) or just imagining messages, just like you're imagining that you've diligently responded to every request for clarification on your ill-defined yet adamant stance.
There's nothing ill-defined about my stance. It's very clear. Meta should clean up its child porn mess,
>Again, feel free to elaborate.
Well, I think it's incredibly disingenuous to act as if the only reason one could come to such belief is because of an extreme opinion. I'm willing to bet you that most people would agree with me that Facebook should do something meaningful about its child porn problem. For no discernable reason you jumped to the conclusion that what I stated is an extreme opinion only shared by zealots. I'd bet most parents would agree. I'd bet most people would agree. In fact, you haven't at all explained what is extreme about that opinion. I think most people think child pornography is a problem, and I think most people think that Facebook, a website which facilitates the proliferation of child pornography and enables predators to get in touch with children, shouldn't. That all seems fairly self-evident, actually. I'm not sure where you spend most of your time such that you think people don't think child pornography is a problem and that only zealots care about it. What a weird place that must be.
> Likewise
Yet you came back to respond again. Either engage in a conversation honestly or fuck off.
Again, the person you originally were talking to about this and myself have pointed out that it's not just Facebook's problem, it's society's problem, and all I have said is that there are tradeoffs, which you deny for inexplicable reasons (probably because you have no idea what you're talking about, but feel free to correct that assumption).
In a similar vein, I asked you what specifically you'd like Facebook to do, and you didn't have any meaningful answer (probably because you have no idea what you're talking about, but feel free to correct that assumption).
> I did, you asked me to and didn't respond.
Why does this thread end with my question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47987893
Where is your comment where you've defined these basic words and got no response?
> Oh, excuse me, not everyone, just "basically everyone else on earth". Again, incredibly dishonest on your part.
I'll restate to "basically everyone on earth with a clue about the differences between centralized and distributed systems".
> There's nothing ill-defined about my stance. It's very clear. Meta should clean up its child porn mess,
The first obvious question is: How (what is the definition of "clean up")? The obvious question after that is: If they do so, where do the pedos go next, because Facebook didn't create their interest in child porn? The obvious question after that is: Is that better than the status quo?
Yet you have literally no comment on this. Why are you so adamant about your position when it's apparently so uninformed?
> Well, I think it's incredibly disingenuous to act as if the only reason one could come to such belief is because of an extreme opinion. I'm willing to bet you that most people would agree with me that Facebook should do something meaningful about its child porn problem.
See the link above where I asked you to define meaningful and you didn't respond. They aren't doing nothing now from what I can tell, and they certainly could be doing more, to the point of shutting down their service entirely. What is "meaningful" to you?
> For no discernible reason you jumped to the conclusion that what I stated is an extreme opinion only shared by zealots. I'd bet most parents would agree. I'd bet most people would agree. In fact, you haven't at all explained what is extreme about that opinion. I think most people think child pornography is a problem, and I think most people think that Facebook, a website which facilitates the proliferation of child pornography and enables predators to get in touch with children, shouldn't. That all seems fairly self-evident, actually. I'm not sure where you spend most of your time such that you think people don't think child pornography is a problem and that only zealots care about it. What a weird place that must be.
I live in a world where Facebook is used for a lot of things, just like every other service on the internet, recognize that those services are far from the root cause of any issue related to the creation or distribution of undesirable content, understand that they are not able to solve the root cause, and that the only way for them to fully eradicate any specific type of content from their service is to shut it down, with the end state being no internet once this is applied to all services that host content.
If you see that state as acceptable or desirable, then just come out and say so. If not, then you need to accept that online services will end up hosting some objectionable content at some point. You rejected both of these options previously when stated slightly differently, and have yet to describe a third state that must exist for that rejection is valid, which is what leads to believe you might be some sort of zealot (as they are known for rejecting reality). Feel free to describe why this rejection of the only two option I'm aware of is valid at any time, beyond just saying "Facebook needs to do more".
> Yet you came back to respond again. Either engage in a conversation honestly or fuck off.
You could start by sharing a coherent thought beyond "Facebook bad" on this topic. I've presented numerous comments and questions that have gone unanswered.
There's nothing incoherent about that thought, which is also not what I expressed anyway. It's not my burden to solve Facebook's problem just because I pointed out that it should be solved. The proposition that it is my burden is, again, ridiculous.
>Why does this thread end with my question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47987893
It doesn't. It ends with me providing the common definition of meaningful, which is apparently something you were otherwise incapable of determining yourself?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48009016
>I'll restate to "basically everyone on earth with a clue about the differences between centralized and distributed systems".
Hah. It'd be funny if it were intentional on your part.
>In a similar vein, I asked you what specifically you'd like Facebook to do, and you didn't have any meaningful answer (probably because you have no idea what you're talking about, but feel free to correct that assumption).
What don't I know about?
> The first obvious question is: How (what is the definition of "clean up")? The obvious question after that is: If they do so, where do the pedos go next, because Facebook didn't create their interest in child porn? The obvious question after that is: Is that better than the status quo?
Oh so you are making the exact argument you just said you weren't? Okay. Not going to bother because none of that is a reason why Facebook shouldn't "clean up" their problem. What do I mean by clean up? Again, make an impactful change on the ability for predators to interact with children and distribute child pornography on their platforms. You act as if I'm the only person in the world making this criticism, it's a bit bizarre. Here's some material for you that I found with 3 seconds of using Google (because, again, you apparently can't?):
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202601/meta-pledges-complian...
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67640177
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39187929
https://childhood.org/news/facebook-a-hidden-marketplace-for...
> I live in a world where Facebook is used for a lot of things, just like every other service on the internet, recognize that those services are far from the root cause of any issue related to the creation or distribution of undesirable content, understand that they are not able to solve the root cause, and that the only way for them to fully eradicate any specific type of content from their service is to shut it down, with the end state being no internet once this is applied to all services that host content.
Facebook does not have to solve the root problem of child pornography. No one suggested that they did. This is a total strawman argument. Again, if you're going to be dishonest, disingenuous, and frankly just rude, please don't bother responding to me as you previously insisted you would.
> You rejected both of these options previously when stated slightly differently
No, I didn't. I never suggested that there was a world where Facebook would have absolutely zero amounts of child porn or predators or facilitating their actions. It's so weird how you keep making up arguments to knock down.
Your post was marked as dead by the mods, and I didn't have deadlinks enabled. I'm glad we now have external confirmation that you are commenting in bad faith and the substance of your comments is obnoxious and useless enough that this site hides some of them by default.
I think that's a good ending point for this thread, because you have absolutely nothing of substance to say on any topic remotely related to technology. I'm betting you're a lawyer?