|
|
|
|
|
|
by forgottenpass
3443 days ago
|
|
|
Your argument rests on the assumption of a sufficiently large overlap in the set of illegal and set of disturbing things they viewed. While the best headline grabbing portion of such content moderation (child abuse) do fall into that intersection, it's a faulty assumption to construct your already-dubious reasoning that better surveillance will improve the live of the content moderators. |
|
|
There's no need for overlap. You see video footage of rape, child abuse, animal abuse, beheadings, etc... that's enough to take someone to trial. One video is enough.
>"While the best headline grabbing portion of such content moderation (child abuse) do fall into that intersection, it's a faulty assumption to construct your already-dubious reasoning that better surveillance will improve the live of the content moderators."
It's not rocket science, it's quite simple. If you stop the ability of the producers of morally bankrupt content to produce the content, there will be less new content to remove. If you disagree, explain your logic.