Young people suffering “Internet's worst horrors”? You mean the social network services?<p>Those exploitative weepy articles about content moderation are just multi-layered hypocrisy.<p>First of all, it is supposed that people are somehow entitled to “good experiences”, and the arbitrary (and moving) cultural boundary between “suitable” and “unsuitable” is as unquestionable as if it was God-given, when in fact, it's just a feature of an entertainment direct-to-screen service available to those from the luckier parts of the world/society. Others deal with the feces for them, as shown here.<p>Then there's the hypocrisy of the reader, who enjoys the thrills articles like those give, but also enjoys the service too much to stop, and leave the system of exploitation. Like, “It's so awful, so awful, but I <i>need</i> my daily dose of filtered cat pictures, so you're gonna get that sad dickpick spam in my stead. <i>It's just the world we live in!</i> <i>The algorithm</i> makes me continue doing that!”, etc.<p>Then there's the talk about values, correctness, and so on, but those decisions are not even personal in the first place. The “SFW” facade is not supported by some die-hard conservatives in power, it is just a business requirement. Say, breastfeeding is considered “problematic” not because of some “clash of cultures”, or “gender conflict”, or “religious opposition”, but because you can't use someone's body in that context to hold advertisements, as stated in contracts. Now go hide yourself in a ditch somewhere, don't spoil our pretty picture. Money happens to be religion here (what an original thought).<p>Some time ago, people naively believed in the future that eliminates travails and death, now we pretend really hard that the “future” is now, and build all kinds of media and social contraptions to make someone else do the “dirty” work (real or “emotional”).