[replwoacause]

Just because a group of people is accustomed to poor working conditions doesn't make it any more right or ethical.

You could apply your logic to sweatshop scenarios where the people in those countries are just happy to have work, even if the work pays unfair wages, requires unreasonable hours, uses child labor, and provides no benefits to the workers. But hey... the disenfranchised are just happy to have a paycheck right?

[eloff]

It’s a necessary stepping stone on the path to better working conditions and wages. I think people forget what the early days of the Industrial Revolution looked like in our countries.

Can you get there without that? Likely not.

What you’re suggesting is to actually keep them poor for their own good. It’s a nonsensical and counterproductive argument that your making.

[replwoacause]

Not exactly. I'm suggesting that work like this be paid at a fair rate and mental health precautions are considered and taken seriously.

You can chop logic on this all day long if you like, but the point is, this work is terrible and damaging, and that's why we farm it out to countries like Kenya where the people there don't have a choice.

[blagie]

People in Kenya do have a choice, and they pick the best choice for themselves and for their families.

The set of choices for people earning $2/day is different than $20 or $200, but not smaller.

Your aggression is better targeted towards manufacturing jobs in parts of Asia, or Walmart workers in the rural US, than to this context.

[eloff]

The work is better than the options people have there, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. Don’t try to spin it as a negative thing for them. They don’t see it that way.

[PeterisP]

Kenyans are able to win this business because they can do this job at a competitive price. If Kenyans would require more, they would not get this (relatively good compared to their alternatives) job, it would go someplace else and Kenyans would lose out.

[lolinder]

What would constitute a fair wage? The same as what we would have been paid in the US? Maybe India?

If we insist upon that, then why hire in Kenya, which is an unstable and unpredictable environment that has a lot of inherent risks for the company?

Or are you arguing these jobs shouldn't exist at all?

[replwoacause]

I'm not a labor wage specialist so your guess is as good as mine. Do you think $1.32/hr. is fair? Are you of the impression after reading the article that the worker's wellbeing was taken seriously and the pay was set at a fair amount considering the kind of work they were doing? I wasn't.

[lolinder]

If you're not a wage specialist and my guess is as good as yours, why were you so quick to dismiss someone who actually lives in the country you're opining on?

[replwoacause]

It's clear you're one who enjoys a circular argument so I'll just leave it at this for you. I don't need to know the exact right amount of money these people should be paid to know that $1.32 per hour for looking at child porn and violent imagery is too little, especially without the requisite mental health resources available. If you are so sure this is a fair situation, maybe for your next job you'll accept minimum wage pay doing similar work.

[dumbfounder]

It isn't pictures, it is text only. I think there is a huge difference. I had to police content for Twicsy (a search engine with 10 billion Twitter images indexed) and I have seen some very bad stuff. There is a huge difference.

[realAzazello]

> It isn't pictures, it is text only

For ChatGPT related, yes/maybe. But for other content filetering work, it's primarily video & pictures: https://www.wired.com/story/social-enterprise-technology-afr...

[absrd]

This is just false, if you read the article Sama also collected explicit, illegal images on behalf of OpenAI -- this was the reason the contract was cancelled.

[PeterisP]

If for the local market $1.32-$2/hour take-home is good compared to alternatives (of which I have no idea, but local claims seem to support that, listing comparable rates but for gross not take-home), then yes, it's fair, and it would harm the workers if we'd prohibit that, because they would have to take a worse local job.

[naasking]

> Just because a group of people is accustomed to poor working conditions doesn't make it any more right or ethical

I think this kind of moral puritanism is an enemy of real social progress. Maybe we shouldn't or can't expect some supreme, pure state of "ethical", maybe all we can or should expect is "better".