So, I got interested in this article&#x27;s description of horrid working conditions and decided to read about it carefully. But I noticed that it gives emotional descriptions of it long before the actual facts. I wouldn&#x27;t go as far as calling this a manipulation, but it&#x27;s certainly a disturbing writing style.<p>3rd paragraph:<p>&gt; grueling work conditions, humiliating treatment, and a secretive, imperious culture in which they were treated as disposable outsiders.<p>6th paragraph:<p>&gt; “It was degrading as a human being,” said another. “We weren’t treated as individuals. We were treated in this robot way.”<p>And then, finally, on 10th paragraphs, we get a glimpse on the facts:<p>&gt; they received benefits including limited medical insurance, paid time off after 6 months and transit reimbursement<p>(BTW, is it usual for contractors to receive such perks?)<p>&gt; A company happy hour would happen at 8 p.m., and we’d be working<p>Horrible, inhumane treatment indeed.<p>&gt; Over time, the work became increasingly demanding, and Facebook’s trending news team started to look more and more like the worst stereotypes of a digital media content farm. Managers gave curators aggressive quotas for how many summaries and headlines to write, and timed how long it took curators to write a post. The general standard was 20 posts a day.<p>20 posts during 8 hour work day is almost half an hour on one post. It is considered too little? Seriously?<p>So — apart from all the pretty words, I didn&#x27;t really see any especially bad treatment. Hell, I&#x27;m pretty sure that your average newspaper employees have more nightmare stories.