Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42523766›Full record

ArticleAI and ethics2026

Trauma behind the algorithm: a phenomenological analysis of violent content data work.

Mark Ryan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI and ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mark RyanWageningen Social and Economic Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4850-0111

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the promises of artificial intelligence (AI) is that it can automate many roles currently performed by humans. However, in the ethics of AI, increased attention is given to the vast amount of labour required for the development, processing, annotation, and implementation of AI. This hidden employment (or 'ghost work') is invisible because of the precarious nature of these jobs, poor working conditions, and the social and economic burdens on employees. For example, to ensure AI does not create undesirable content and that social media platforms do not host it, human data annotators and content moderators (violent content data workers-VCDWs) must read, watch, and listen to content containing torture, rape, bestiality, child sexual abuse, and murder. Through phenomenological analysis, this paper demonstrates that this work has deeply traumatic effects on the affectivity, embodiment, and intersubjectivity of VCDWs. While several other professions (e.g., law enforcement officers, war journalists, and medical professionals) must view violent content, the duration, velocity, and accumulation of exposure to violent images in VCDWs is unprecedented. The outcome of this is trauma from being unable to decipher the ontological status of the content, compassion fatigue due to helplessness to help those suffering, and a myriad of physical, psychological, and interrelation problems for VCDWs. This paper exposes a profession that is systematically concealed, buried under NDAs, outsourced to the Global South, and laundered through ethics-washing and 'responsible AI' branding.

Indexed as

Machine learningPhenomenologyPsychologyResponsible AITechnologyViolence

Identifiers

PMID42523766
PMCPMC13407452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.