
Former employees sue Microsoft after developing PTSD - danso
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article125953194.html
======
zitterbewegung
A lot of people here are taking the position that they weren't "forced" to do
it. I think this is a incorrect framing of the problem.

I would take the concept that they experienced a workplace injury and weren't
informed of the scope of danger that it may pose.

Sure everyone has the right to refuse to do a job but changing jobs requires
the resources to do so. If you have some type of leverage such as a house or
bills to pay then thats an issue. The other problem is how do you perform this
moderation?

Possibly you could restrict the amount of time someone is exposed to this and
then change people out once they have reached some type of exposure but thats
primarily speculative.

~~~
TheOneTrueKyle
You don't deserve a job, nor is anyone holding a gun to your head. You chose
to have kids and a mortgage.

I currently work at a giant corp and I see this mentality everywhere and I see
nepotism in action because of it. I need to find a new job. What I don't have
to do is hang around.

(Assuming these people knew what they were getting into)

~~~
silentmars
So what? It sounds like you are using this argument to excuse companies whose
practices are causing workplace injury.

~~~
TheOneTrueKyle
Doesn't excuse anything. Sidetracked the conversation I apologize

------
whack
_" Soto and Blauert also allege that ... the company violated state law by
failing to provide a safe workplace for them and should have realized how
harmful viewing such images should have been for their employees._"

They might have some valid claims and expectations in their suit, but some of
their allegations don't really sound reasonable. For example, the above. Of
course Microsoft knew that viewing these videos is very psychologically
disturbing. _Hence why they hired moderators to find and censor them, on a
voluntary at-will contract._ If we're going to fault Microsoft for exposing
their moderators to disturbing content, what exactly do we expect them to do
instead? Not have such moderators and allow members of the public to be
exposed to these highly disturbing videos instead?

The lawsuit sounds a bit too much like firemen suing the fire department
because "fighting fires creates an unsafe workspace that is harmful to
firemen." If the fire department didn't do everything it can to help its
firemen, the lawsuit would certainly be reasonable. But blaming the fire
department for the intrinsic and unavoidable dangers involved in the job,
doesn't sound reasonable at all.

------
SandersAK
It's a little disheartening that people on HN fail to understand that some
people don't have a true choice sometimes when it comes to a job.

I'm not posting this to shame anyone, but I would ask that before you say
things like "well just quit" or "it's on them when they made the choice,"
consider that not everyone in the world can make the same choices you can, or
have the resources, or know-how to make those choices.

Self-reliance is obviously important, and something that our community values,
but I think being empathetic to those who either cannot or don't know how is
crucial to creating products and services that add value in the world.

good luck out there, y'all.

~~~
TheOneTrueKyle
I once chose to live in my car instead of taking a crappy job. You absolutely
have a choice. I really hate this kind of thinking.

So rather than complain, let me ask this to people with kids, which seems to
be the people who think they don't have a choice:

What is better? Having a job to take care of kids? Or telling the story to
your kids about how you left a place because you didn't believe in what the
company believed/ was doing/ etc? It seems the latter would let your child see
you as a genuine human being who doesn't allow money to dictate their lives.

I don't have kids and never intend (on purpose), so please let me know if I am
missing something.

I don't talk to my parents because they didn't really provide value in my
life. But they did sacrifice things for money. Didn't really work out

~~~
SandersAK
You're creating a scenario where there are two options. In my experience that
is almost never the case. Sometimes you have many options, sometimes you have
none.

You're making assumptions about how family comes to be, who you would define
as family, and making assumptions on what a person's obligations to family
_should_ be.

In all these cases, you're positing a sort of hegemonic perfect person who has
total free agency and no history to contend with.

If that's truly you, that's fantastic. Cherish and enjoy that liberation. But
just remember that to have that agency, millions of people have struggled
without such things.

I think it's great that you've made a decision about whether or not to have
kids in a purposeful manner. Many people don't, and I wish they would. I have
a kid and I wouldn't trade him for any fancy startup or company founding in
the world. Different strokes.

But it also leads me to believe (and correct me if i'm wrong) you've never had
to, or thought to, work and live to serve and enable the lives of another.

I think that's totally ok. I'm not judging you there. But I am asking you to
consider that others find value in that path, and in our current society, that
path is often derided and consider "unsuccessful."

~~~
TheOneTrueKyle
There are many variables, this is true and unfair of me. It was more to get
into the mindset of someone else's thinking.

I have however had to work towards someone else's life (maybe not as extreme
as a child) and would love nothing other than to serve humanity in a greater
way.

I ask because I genuinely don't understand this thinking so thank you for
taking the time to respond and not down voting into oblivion. People like you
really are why I come to this site!

Not everyone has good parents. Some people need to still figure things out,
even at age 30...

~~~
SandersAK
I honestly really do understand your situation in many ways. I know what it's
like to fight for something better, and to feel like you're enduring all the
stress you can because you think it's worth it. It's really hard to hear
people who don't seem to have this mentality and to see them suffer. "IF only
they'd just make this one choice" I find myself saying. But that's not the
whole story, and I know that now after a lot of failure to reflect on my own
situation.

I don't think you should throw that passion away. But I do think, as much as
you have learned and gained by getting yourself to a good place in your own
way, there's a lot you can gain from pushing yourself to see other angles.

Empathy is like a muscle - the more you use it, the stronger and more
effective it becomes.

and I mean yeah, I think everyone has a lot to figure out, no matter their
age!

------
k_sze
Here is a rather unbased what-if:

I wonder if this PTSD can be alleviated if the content screeners get more
positive feedback about what they do, so they don't feel they are just looking
at aweful stuff all day long, so they feel they are actually making positive
contributions to society, making the world a better place?

E.g. what if they can take ownership of what they report to the NCMEC? What if
they can call up NCMEC and ask about the progress of cases that were opened
because of their reporting? What if they get feedback, like "holy shit, they
found and saved this child, and arrested the monster!" What if they held
(monthly) partie to celebrate their achievements in fighting crime? (ok, maybe
not _parties_ , but _something_ to celebrate and give themselves a pat on the
shoulder).

I just think they may sleep better at night if they learn that the monsters
are now locked up, no longer out there at large, hurting more innocent
children.

------
philip1209
As a thought experiment, screening for this role from Microsoft's side has to
be really difficult. It's a job that needs to be done to protect their users
and reputation, but it sucks. If you interview somebody for the position and
they're actually enthusiastic about it, that would probably be a huge red
flag. I can't imagine a good solution besides machine learning.

------
wccrawford
It's a shame anyone has to do jobs like these. But forcing people to do it? (I
assume the alternative was not to have a job there at all.) That's ridiculous.

I also tend to believe the former employees about the rest of the working
conditions. At the very least, the employee has a clear history of having
problems with the work, and the company should have been better about handling
this. There's no way they could fail to foresee that this work could have
terrible effects on someone's mind.

~~~
abstractbeliefs
While this case is really tragic, and improvements can be made, I don't think
it's fair really to say these people were _forced_ to do this work.

You say that the other option was to not work at Microsoft, well, this means
they aren't being forced. They had the choice to not work that job role.
Workers are not entitled to shop around within a company for a role that suits
them, and companies are not obliged to offer the job role that an employee
wants.

~~~
hackits
I wouldn't say not obliged, entitled to a position. They advertised for a
position, you convinced them you're a fit for the position. They've chosen you
out of a pool of candidates that suites the job. They offer you a employment
contract detailing the role, and responsibilities. You accept said contract
and term's or write counter proposal. After accepting the position you shut up
and do your job you where hired to do.

~~~
colemickens
Maybe you should re-read the article and you'd realize it was NOT a job they
signed up to do. If only people read the articles instead of leaping to defend
face-less huge corporations.

~~~
hackits
Whats so hard to grasp? Some people seem to be jumping to conclusion on this.
You're hired for a position that is detailed out in your EMPLOYMENT contract.
If you get to your job and find out you have to kill kittens instead of the
job description YOU'RE choosing to carry out the task. No one is forcing you
to do it. On moral grounds and ethical ground I would resign instantly and
contact the authority of the kind of material stored on the server.

~~~
colemickens
Not going to repeat myself about whether it's a choice. There's better
comments in this thread.

 _> and contact the authorize of the kind of material stored on the server._

Uh, I don't think you understand how this works. I'm sure if you tell the FBI
that Microsoft works to remove child pornography from OneDrive and report the
offenders they're going to say "Okay...?".

~~~
hackits
You're hired for a position to perform administration of OneDrive accounts.
You're not hired to remove `Child pornography` from one drive or look at that
shit. Its night and day that it's completely out of scope of the job
description. The next step is simple you talk with your manager that the
content viewed is out of scope of the scope of works in the contract (border
line criminal material) that you refuse to view the content during the course
of your work.

~~~
colemickens
You seriously need to read the article, you are completely and embarrassingly
misinformed about what the role is that this article is talking about.

------
CaptSpify
I don't know if this is true or not but... I've heard that they limit the
amount of time that you are allowed to serve on the "child services" team for
some police departments. The idea is that, no matter how well adjusted you
are, this messes with your head, and causes you to lose your cool. Anyone in a
position to validate this?

------
Havoc
I wonder about people that take these jobs & keep them until burn-out.

It's a little like I don't do darkweb stuff because I know I likely won't cope
with it. And I don't clean skyscraper windows because I know I don't do well
with heights.

So it's a case of "Well what the f did you expect?".

None of that excuses MS not providing support certainly but realistically
these people signed up for something that is pretty much traumatic by
definition.

Now if MS pitched the job as rainbows & sunshine that's a different
story...then they should get sued to hell...

~~~
electic
> None of that excuses MS not providing support...

I am not sure what the point of your entire comment is. You can't compare fear
of heights to watching child porn, murder, rape, and other horrific crimes all
day. Almost 99.9 percent of the population is going to develop psychological
issues. MS should have provided support knowing what this role entails, they
didn't. So here is the suit. [1]

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-
moderation/](https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/)

~~~
DanBC
And when some bits of MS provided support (take extra time off) other bits of
MS were disapproving when the men used that support.

> Supervisors authorized him and others to leave work early when they broke
> down or became overwhelmed by the trauma associated with viewing the
> depictions. Leaving early on occasions of breaking down was part of the
> ‘Wellness Plan.’ However, Mr. Blauert was criticized in employment reviews
> for following his wellness plan.”

~~~
electic
Leaving work "early" isn't a viable wellness plan.

~~~
jo909
And becomes a complete joke if you are then made to feel guilty about it.

------
guelo
There's probably some subreddits and image boards where Microsoft could
recruit willing employees to look at this kind of content. Though I don't
think I'd want them as my coworkers.

------
bitmapbrother
>Members of Microsoft’s Online Safety Team had “God-like” status, former
employees Henry Soto and Greg Blauert allege in a lawsuit filed on Dec. 30.
They “could literally view any customer’s communications at any time.”

I wonder if these "God like" powers were ever abused. This isn't the first
time Microsoft has snooped into their users accounts.

------
pluma
Considering there are actual (legal) communities around real-life "gore" I
think the "had to view child abuse content" part is the less interesting one,
although it makes for a better headline.

The import part is this:

> Microsoft did not warn the workers about the dangers of this line of work
> and the potential for “debilitating injuries”

People seeking out this content and watching it on a regular basis know what
they are getting themselves into (even if it's the kind of stuff that wouldn't
even fly on sites like 4chan). Regular employees of a software company might
not.

The moderators should have been screened, prepared and offered free
counselling. If this had been the case, I would have argued that they
shouldn't be able to claim damages because they knew what they were getting
themselves into.

As far as "they could have switched jobs" goes -- maybe that would have
helped, maybe not. If some of the former moderators are suffering from actual
trauma, that can be caused by a single impression. Sticking to the job may
actually have been an (unhealthy) coping mechanism. Regular psychological
exams might have avoided that.

It's negligent. It's a horrifying job and not everyone has the mental strength
(or is desensitised enough) to do it but they basically threw them in the cold
water at the deep end and then just tried to CYA by saying "if you don't like
it, you can do something else" \-- but only when the damage had already been
done.

------
partycoder
Whenever you allow user generated content, there's a chance of people sharing
content that violates the terms of service.

I think AI that can identify an activity or situation and flag it
automatically is technology that exists to some extent.

For cases where the AI cannot determine what is happening with certainty, it
might be able to "pre-filter" the image to make it less shocking.

------
prostoalex
"while both men applied for worker’s compensation while taking medical leaves
due to their PTSD, their claims were denied"

Why is Microsoft being sued here and not the Washington state agency denying
the claim?

------
serge2k
What do other companies do with people who have to evaluate content like this?

~~~
ZenoArrow
It's a problem for multiple companies. Some seem to offer counselling. I think
the YouTube approach of only offering yearlong contracts is probably a
sensible one, though you'd hope there would be some sort of support programme
for ex-employees also:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/technology/19screen.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/technology/19screen.html)

"Flagged videos are then sent for manual review by YouTube-employed content
moderators who, because of the nature of the work, are given only yearlong
contracts and access to counseling services, according to Victoria Grand, a
YouTube spokeswoman."

Also, I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion but, it's this kind of
problem that puts forward the strongest case for increased online
surveillance. I understand it's unfair that everyone will be punished for the
actions of a few, but I'd rather be under surveillance than have more damage
to the personal lives of these content moderators. Maybe we just aren't yet
mature enough as a species for the fully open web we used to have.

~~~
Apocryphon
I agree with your final statement, in that this is the sort of awful behavior
that adds credence to calls for surveillance, or at least private censorship.
I wouldn't say this fully justifies for that sort of control, but it certainly
makes them sound legitimate. How did society deal with these actions before
the internet?

I don't know what the solution to this will be. Probably a perpetual cat-and-
mouse game of image processing algorithms trying to spot graphic/illegal
content and black hats finding more and more novel and sophisticated ways to
defeat those programs.

~~~
pluma
> How did society deal with these actions before the internet?

We executed criminals in public spectacles to be enjoyed by the whole family.
Also, blood sports.

It's actually a marvel of modern society that for most people in the Western
world exposure to the more gruesome parts of human nature is voluntary and
confined to videos and pictures on the Internet.

Even if you could prevent all _illegal_ sources of such material -- stop all
violent crime, sexual abuse and murder -- how does that prevent _legal_ ones?
There are entire websites on the Internet filled with pictures from violent
accidents or disturbing results of medical procedures that many might find
emotionally scarring. Not to mention what we do to animals we use as food.

Also, ultimately what may or may not be traumatic to an individual can very
greatly. And a lot of things that might be traumatic to many are necessary to
display in some contexts (e.g. medical professions or studying historical
events). In some cases witness accounts alone may be horrible enough to
traumatise.

I don't like slippery slope arguments but I think this train of thought is
flawed enough that there isn't even a slope, it's a straight drop all the way
down from the onset.

~~~
ZenoArrow
>"There are entire websites on the Internet filled with pictures from violent
accidents or disturbing results of medical procedures that many might find
emotionally scarring."

The difference is in intent.

If I view a horrible car crash that was an accident, the images may be graphic
and unsettling at first glance, but I can brush it off.

However, if I saw a video where bodies were mutilated to the same degree, but
was caused by someone doing it for their own kicks, that's much more
disturbing.

------
akjainaj
>Soto claims he was assigned to the team and didn’t have any choice in the
matter.

Of course you did. You could've walked out. You simply chose a paycheck over
your sanity.

~~~
komali2
It appears that part of the lawsuit is that Microsoft didn't adequately
prepare them for the job. I highly doubt they realized what they were getting
themselves into from the start. Furthermore, when it comes to employment
lawsuits like this, "didn't have any choice in the matter" is the equivalent
of "could have quit instead of doing this." Quitting your job to avoid
something your company wants you to do is not a valid answer - the _company_
should not be asking you to do whatever that thing is. Hence, the lawsuit.

