> > 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.

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?

Well you gotta give out black mail material to the scam centers somehow. Otherwise they don't actually have leverage! Oh right... We don't want that happening.

I’ve worked in trust and safety - for me this is stupid, but well below the threshold of impossible.

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?

With lawyers like these, …