Facebook is Subcontracting Its Content Moderation for Hundreds of Millions of Dollars (nytimes.com) 48
"For years, Facebook has been under scrutiny for the violent and hateful content that flows through its site...." reports the New York Times. "But behind the scenes, Facebook has quietly paid others to take on much of the responsibility. Since 2012, the company has hired at least 10 consulting and staffing firms globally to sift through its posts, along with a wider web of subcontractors, according to interviews and public records."
Facebook's single biggest partner for content moderating is Accenture, the Times adds. "Facebook has signed contracts with it for content moderation and other services worth at least $500 million a year, according to The Times's examination." Accenture employs more than a third of the 15,000 people whom Facebook has said it has hired to inspect its posts... Their contracts, which have not previously been reported, have redefined the traditional boundaries of an outsourcing relationship. Accenture has absorbed the worst facets of moderating content and made Facebook's content issues its own. As a cost of doing business, it has dealt with workers' mental health issues from reviewing the posts. It has grappled with labor activism when those workers pushed for more pay and benefits. And it has silently borne public scrutiny when they have spoken out against the work.
Those issues have been compounded by Facebook's demanding hiring targets and performance goals and so many shifts in its content policies that Accenture struggled to keep up, 15 current and former employees said. And when faced with legal action from moderators about the work, Accenture stayed quiet as Facebook argued that it was not liable because the workers belonged to Accenture and others. "You couldn't have Facebook as we know it today without Accenture," said Cori Crider, a co-founder of Foxglove, a law firm that represents content moderators. "Enablers like Accenture, for eye-watering fees, have let Facebook hold the core human problem of its business at arm's length...."
The firm soon parlayed its work with Facebook into moderation contracts with YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest and others, executives said. (The digital content moderation industry is projected to reach $8.8 billion next year, according to Everest Group, roughly double the 2020 total.) Facebook also gave Accenture contracts in areas like checking for fake or duplicate user accounts and monitoring celebrity and brand accounts to ensure they were not flooded with abuse...
Each U.S. moderator generated $50 or more per hour for Accenture, two people with knowledge of the billing said. In contrast, moderators in some U.S. cities received starting pay of $18 an hour.
Facebook's single biggest partner for content moderating is Accenture, the Times adds. "Facebook has signed contracts with it for content moderation and other services worth at least $500 million a year, according to The Times's examination." Accenture employs more than a third of the 15,000 people whom Facebook has said it has hired to inspect its posts... Their contracts, which have not previously been reported, have redefined the traditional boundaries of an outsourcing relationship. Accenture has absorbed the worst facets of moderating content and made Facebook's content issues its own. As a cost of doing business, it has dealt with workers' mental health issues from reviewing the posts. It has grappled with labor activism when those workers pushed for more pay and benefits. And it has silently borne public scrutiny when they have spoken out against the work.
Those issues have been compounded by Facebook's demanding hiring targets and performance goals and so many shifts in its content policies that Accenture struggled to keep up, 15 current and former employees said. And when faced with legal action from moderators about the work, Accenture stayed quiet as Facebook argued that it was not liable because the workers belonged to Accenture and others. "You couldn't have Facebook as we know it today without Accenture," said Cori Crider, a co-founder of Foxglove, a law firm that represents content moderators. "Enablers like Accenture, for eye-watering fees, have let Facebook hold the core human problem of its business at arm's length...."
The firm soon parlayed its work with Facebook into moderation contracts with YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest and others, executives said. (The digital content moderation industry is projected to reach $8.8 billion next year, according to Everest Group, roughly double the 2020 total.) Facebook also gave Accenture contracts in areas like checking for fake or duplicate user accounts and monitoring celebrity and brand accounts to ensure they were not flooded with abuse...
Each U.S. moderator generated $50 or more per hour for Accenture, two people with knowledge of the billing said. In contrast, moderators in some U.S. cities received starting pay of $18 an hour.
Much moola (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Hey the left and their corporate/media buddies/mouthpieces are in power currently so censorship is good now.
It used to be that we all expected that censorship mean suppressing truth.
If China didn't want their citizens talking about and knowing about Tiananmen Square, they'd censor the topic.
If North Korea doesn't want its citizens to know about the free world, they just censor the topic.
If a despotic leader doesn't want their citizens discussing their seizure of power, they censor the topic.
Thing is, the last few year taught us about a brand new evil: the power of lies. Suddenly we live in a world where a
What "lies"? (Score:4, Insightful)
What "lies"? That masks are bad for you [nytimes.com] — or that you should wear two of them [cnbc.com]? That "non-circumstantial" evidence of Trump's collusion with Putin exists [wsj.com] — or that no such was uncovered in a year-long investigation [theintercept.com]?
You are falling into the trap of "exclusivity of our times" — even though there is nothing special about them. Mark Twain mocked the lies during elections in particular in 1870 [loa.org]! A century before that Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the press' occasional abuses, but still insisted, speech must remain free:
What's so special about today? The risk of dying from Spanish Flu in America was over four times that of COVID-19 [healthaffairs.org]. Foreigners have used our freedoms against us for decades [medium.com]. Armed protesters have occupied government buildings before [capitolweekly.net] — and some have even bombed the very place over which you have your underwear knotted [politico.com].
No, the Founding Father's rejection of censorship still stands:
All of these apply equally to censorship governmental and private. That only the former is un-Constitutional in our country is besides the point — the latter is just as wrong even if legal.
But the real threat to our freedoms is that Facebook aren't censoring voluntarily — they do that at the behest of Democrats in government, on pain of "punishing regulations" [washingtonpost.com]... This evil scheme — which circumvents the First Amendment, while directing the popular anger at the hapless corporation — must be defeated.
Mueller did no such thing (Score:1, Offtopic)
The initial recommendation that masks were unnecessary was because we had weak data & Fauci saw no reason to trigger a run on masks. Better data showed they were necessary and the messaging was changed. It's not Tony's fault you don't understand how science works. What I want to know is what are you doing hanging around
If the declaration of Independence didn't exist (Score:2)
And for Christ's sakes I post on slashed dot all day long, I have no illusions about myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But which message was the truth to be defended, and which one was a lie to be suppressed — by the government? Who should have made that determination back then, and who should continue making such determinations now?
The lie about masks being dangerous had nothing — zilch — to do with science. Doctor Faucci lied through his teeth — and since you are on first-
Re: (Score:3)
You are falling into the trap of "exclusivity of our times" — even though there is nothing special about them.
You are dead wrong about that. In no other period of time has the common man had a way of communicating to every person in the modern world in seconds.
We are in the most unique of circumstances because a single idiot can set off a flood of idiots around the world to push a patently false idea. Forget a lie traveling halfway around the world before the truth puts it's shoes on because now a lie can be firmly embedded in the public consciousness before the truth is even awake.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened is, the Left got the power — they are now holding the actual reins of government, no matter what party controls the ostensible Branches. And, now they follow Lenin's argument from 100 years ago:
Re: (Score:2)
Radios [cdispatch.com] gave us this exact ability decades ago. Fail.
The slower-moving truth is likewise empowered with the same technology... That it remains slower than a lie, is not specific to our times.
Yeah, put this into your petition to abolish the First Amendment. Let's see, how f
Re: (Score:2)
Radios gave us this exact ability decades ago.
Radio broadcasting equipment was expensive and messaging was synchronous, you ninnyhammer.
Your argument has the strength of an ant and the burden of an oxen.
Re: (Score:2)
Thirty years ago? Nope. Not even fifty — not at all. Perfectly within reach of hobbyists — numerous enough to have their own magazine [amazon.com].
And now you're moving the goal posts... While calling me names.
My argument is based on the knowledge of history of multiple cultures. You barely know you great-grand
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is FAR more accessible than radio has ever been. In the last 1980s there were a comparable number of people on the internet as there are that use radio.
You also omitted the facts that radio is intrinsically ephemeral and synchronous. This contributes significantly to the difference. You could squawk for an hour and only reach a handful of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. The cars are safer, the air-travel is faster, the contraception more effective, and the lives are longer. None of this changes the fact, that a common man could reach everyone (with a receiver) before in particular, and that our times aren't exceptional.
That's irrelevant. A "common man" could use it to broadcast his ideas to anyone, who'd listen — and that
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you really can't handle being wrong. I'm not even going to bother. Good day.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What unlawful revolt?- not one single person has been charged
A quick Google search indicates 638 [insider.com] and more than 500 [usatoday.com].
with that no matter how much they want to
Seems "they" have spent the last nine months following the justice system, investigating, laying charges, and other due-diligence. And it turns out they've been landing guilty pleas since April [bbc.com]. Your claim that there are no charges is factually inaccurate and you can't even rely on "it's recent" as a defense.
yet they set in jail for parading and trespassing
Ooopsie. That USA Today link up above has a nice sample of a bunch of charges that aren't "parading" or trespassing.
both of which don't normally send anyone to jail, which makes the rest of your rant total gibberish.
Well, your post turned out to
Re: (Score:3)
Well, why doesn't the right simply create a competing social media page and let the market decide? Isn't that the right way to do it?
Re:Much moola (Score:4, Interesting)
I modded you up. But then in 2nd thought, maybe I should reply and discuss this matter carefully instead.
"Censorship" is bad. But the current political climate often claim that there are bad stuff that shouldn't be published. The favourite excuses were "child porn" and "terrorism". The new one is "misinformation". There also is a favoured example they use all the time about "shouting FIRE in cinema". We need a way to protect freedom of speech without being accused of pedophiles, terrorists, or anti-science.
Therefore, what we need is not banning content moderation. The ecology of internet force the existence of content moderation, if only for filtering out spammers. What we need is (a) transparency of moderators and (b) content ownership of writers.
Transparency of moderators:
When a website removes one's writing/audio/video and/or ban one from writing/uploading/streaming, each time such act should be clear who is the doer. Even for cases that are automatically done by AI, complaints shall be easy to file and final decision should be done by a real person. That person's identity shall be known and given to the content author. Not necessarily private personal information but at least detailed enough for if the content author want to take things to court, such person couldn't hide behind company(s). Social media sites are immune from libel / slender for users' content. It is good. But the law should not give such immunity for the moderation act itself.
Content ownership of writers:
When a website removes one's writing/audio/video, a backup shall be make available to the author, such that the author is legal and easy to host the content elsewhere. The only exception is when such content is ruled illegal by court order. Ever since social media claim legal immunity from users' content, there is no moral ground left for them to hold users' content hostage. Being legal to do so in current world doesn't make them righteous to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to be able to kick someone off of my property if they don't wish to abide my rules. No one else is forced to be there just like no one is forced to use Twitter, Facebook, etc. I don't and I don't really care about what they do or do not allow. As a bu
Re: Much moola (Score:1)
Well that explains it, moderation for profit! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook gets to claim a loss, while an accounting firm fluffs the data whilst playing a game of whack a mole.
Accenture isn't an accounting firm, it's a consulting firm / outsourcing bodyshop whose model is to through a bunch of cheap labor at problems to generate revenue.
While a necessary function (Score:3, Informative)
Accenture is a real scumbag of a company. I worked for them for a time, and not only was there obvious racism going on in the workplace for the contract I was assigned to -- you don't have 90%+ of your workforce made up of a single minority group without it being an intentional effort -- senior managers and high ranking HR officials were fine just letting managers retaliate against employees right out in the open. I personally witnessed the on-site managers defy Accenture's own HR department and do something they were explicitly told not to do with absolutely no repercussions. You can flat out accuse them of violating the law and they won't even attempt to deny it.
I feel bad for the people who take these jobs, especially since Accenture will just outsource them to a subcontractor like eTeams, knowing most of the people will burn out within 6 months, so they get an even smaller cut of whatever Facebook is paying and Accenture can just claim in any lawsuit that they weren't actually the person's employer.
Re:While a necessary function (Score:4, Interesting)
As I recall they were originally a division of Arthur Anderson until the Enron scandal, at which they were spun off.
So yeah, shady ethics wouldn't be a surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Because private police was such a great idea... (Score:1)
... we now introduce: Private private police!
Now with more conviction quotas!
And all of the classic profit maximization you know and love!
. . .
Facebook really is a psychopath empire, from robotic top to Gestapo bottom.
At least it's dying.
Re: (Score:2)
Dying? Some companies wish they were dying like that...
Re: (Score:1)
It's called Caveman TV. Shove it into your cave and lock it.
Sidestepping ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
plus they can blame the contractor when controversy arises, which it will.
No wonder it's shit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook's single biggest problem for content moderating is Accenture
ftfy
sweatshop (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't there some social media company that recently got sued by former employees for the traumatic content they had to view as part of their moderation jobs? This seems like a play from Amazon's book. Outsource the work to some other company so the employees can't hold Facebook accountable for on-the-job injury.
Oh wait, that company was Facebook [vice.com]. And Microsoft. [theguardian.com]
Upgrading Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the problem with subcontracting, particularly this kind of 'too hard for an AI' work, is that it puts another wall between the Upper employees and the lower ones.
If you are a lower employee (not a contractee), doing the actual work, and you realize that your instructions are wrong, you have a shot of informing the higher bosses of what you figured out. For example, you realize your orders say "no mention of sex at all", but most of the mentions you are blacklisting are casual remarks - clearly neither insulting nor objectionable - made solely by LGBTQ, so you end up blacklisting a lot of LGBTQ people. At the same time the few straight people you blacklist tend to have made very insulting and objectionable. You can quickly inform higher ups, they can take action, and you might get rewarded or promoted.
But if you are a contractee, the most you can do is go to the Owner of your Contractor company. They a) will not care as much as Facebook would, b) will not now how much to believe you, c) may have a harder time talking to anyone in control, and d) will definitely not reward you for slowing down the process that you are getting paid for just to help out Facebook.
Actually its the other way round (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not disagree, the problem is that "not wasting cycles on 'non-issues'" is a HORRENDOUS idea. The things considered non-issues are the source of all innovation. If you were an old-school early 20th century bank with tons of offices throughout your territory, then putting up machines, let's call them "ATMs", was a non-issue, you had lots of tellers. If you were a large late 20th century ATM network than the inability to bank on the internet was a non-issue.
Those non-issues are the source of the dis
Considering... (Score:1)
...that I've seen many, many FB fact checks that say 'missing context', etc, with their 'proof' being something an article almost completely unrelated to the point being made, I'd say FB is getting ripped off and we're all getting screwed.
It's like you put a meme up about bananas, and the fact check article is about banana bread.