Remix.run Logo
Ajedi32 a day ago

Yes sorry, man-workyears not man-hours.

> "Our automated review found nothing wrong with [this ad that implies a young child performing sexual activities]"

That's also a screw-up, and they should be fined accordingly, proportional to the amount of harm this screw up is causing to society. If there are any practical steps they can take to fix the problem, that should incentivize them to do so.

But if for whatever reason it turns out the only possible way to fix such screw-ups is for them to hire 100,000 employees to manually review every single ad, and the cost of that both exceeds the cost of paying the fines and the opportunity cost of turning off this feature completely, so they choose not to do that, is that a problem?

It's like if you tried to insist construction companies evacuate all workers from the construction site before operating any heavy machinery. Maybe that would save some lives, but it would also be completely impractical.

FireBeyond a day ago | parent [-]

> It's like if you tried to insist construction companies evacuate all workers from the construction site before operating any heavy machinery. Maybe that would save some lives, but it would also be completely impractical.

There's a degree of "consent" here - yes, certainly, one can choose not to be a FB user. But if the sites you visit utilize FB's ad program, well, you can still get hit. Construction workers understand that their work is not zero risk (as are many jobs - I used to work in Fire/EMS), but that is tempered by OSHA etc., that have teeth. You can't (at least in theory) keep operating a construction company that operates unsafely and outside regulations or laws and say "it's all good, I'm just going to pay the fines" - OSHA will shut you down and render you liable to criminal prosecution.

If OSHA was dismantled yesterday (and state-level agencies), and people knowing how some corporations value the dollar versus people, there'd be a lot less people willing to work for riskier companies or in riskier professions.

> It's like if you tried to insist construction companies evacuate all workers from the construction site before operating any heavy machinery.

In an admittedly limited subset of situations, this happens: "Lock out/tag out" systems that can physically prevent the operation of certain equipment if anyone is in the risk zone or performing maintenance. In some cases this is literally akin to a padlock workers carry at all times and put through the power switch of machinery when they go to work on it so someone else doesn't come along and turn it on.