Slashdot Mirror
UT-Dallas Professor Adds 'Enemies' Feature To Facebook
An anonymous reader writes "Many people have called for a 'dislike' button on Facebook, but the service has not allowed it. A professor's app lets users add 'enemies,' in what he says is critique of the service's advertiser-friendly niceness. Will Zuckerberg let the app stand or ban it?"
Amything that circumvents FB choices will be banned. Or integrated.
So, in the end, that app will die for sure.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
http://www.enemybook.org/
very old app....
He can't patent the idea, President Nixon came up with it first.
So really, who cares? Facebook users are narcissists, insecure, asocial, or bogus "marketing accounts".
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
There's a dislike plugin already.
In reality most of those accounts are ignored for the most part. Circles of family and friends tend to cull dormat deadwood from active use. I don't friend random strangers, but family and close friends.
The truth shall set you free!
It blows my mind to think of all the similar applications that have yet to be developed for social networking. "dislike all this guy's likes"; "like things that seem like this; join this coalition of things to like.
Non-social like, for specific ideas or products. An app that warns you if the product you're looking at was made by a disliked company. An app that suggests likes by association. An app that warns you not to buy a product if 60% of your social circle dislikes it. An app that auto-likes things Consumer Reports rated 4 stars or better. Partial dislike.
And like/dislike is only the bare beginning. Want. Want(urgent) Need. Looking for. Hate. Attempting to acquire.
Due to privacy concerns I don't facebook but this is obviously the next paradigm* in mass social interaction.
*Sorry to use that word but it's not a buzzword in this case: it fits.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
If advertisers want the feature, my guess is it will be implemented. However, would they want to be associated with advertising based on hatred for someone or something? If the language were softened to ~"not interested", then perhaps.
This sort of behaviour leads to some funny results. One of my friends, as part of a study, was asked to contact - by phone - a bunch of people picked at random from a person's friends list for a marketing project. These were all people the person had said they knew because "I don't just friend anybody..." Not one of them knew the guy.
Facebook == lame.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
Dear user, did you know that your sworn enemy Frin44 really hates Farmville? Would you like to add him to your Farmville notification list?
Now let's see, how do I add EVERYBODY to my list??
Runs into free-speech issues, although I would like to see one minor adjustment: A law requiring clear identification when something is an advertisment, or when a company has accepted payment of any form to promote a product. I do think consumers need to at least know that when a movie is showing product X doing something amazing, it's because the manufacturer handed a pile of money to the studio for placement. Currently the situation is so bad that in some fields manufacturers are actually making up fake news report segments to promote their product in the hope that viewers won't realise it's an advertisment.
Was just thinking that. Disliking something doesn't fit into the doubleplusgood world where everyone is liked and everyone's a winner. See, mom, everyone likes what I do, I got $somerandomnumber people liking what I do!
Being able to dislike something would actually make people see just how many people really not only don't care about them but care enough about them to wish they would just die and leave a very shallow grave.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Try it. Create a fake account, open up some random stranger's page and friend them.
I'd surprised if you get fewer than 80% accepts.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
if the application suberts or negatively impacts the model of facebook, which is data mining for the purposes of targeted advertisement, it will be banned.
i predict the addition of a enemy feature will work to incense negative emotional responses to facebook that so far have been confined to things that can be relatively mitigated, for example its policies and terms of service. an "enemy" on your facebook will make you less likely to check facebook, or its related applications. users who previously had ignored intentionally obfuscated security settings may begin to pay more attention to them, thereby costing you advertising data. you may switch social networks for one without any enemies or abandon social networking alltogether for a more controlled and privatized relationship with your friends. the implications of "enemy" are pretty big.
Good people go to bed earlier.
At least here on /., you actually can. Well, at least occasionally, when you got modpoints. You're not forced to mod every crap up or, if you think it's prime grade bullcrap, can only leave it be. You can actually go and mod it down.
The net effect is that if I talk out of my ass constantly on FB, I will still think people agree with me and like me. Because from time to time, everyone, even the dimmest idiot in the world, is prone to saying something witty, useful or at least funny. Even if 99.9% of the time, whatever he rambles about would instantly be dismissed as idiot drivel.
What does that mean on FB? That you get the occasional "please die, dumbass" comment while, if just looking at your "likes", you'll see how there are still people who actually agree with you, giving you the general feel that what you say is valuable input. On here, if you're a complete idiot 99% of the time, you will be shown in no uncertain terms that you are.
That's basically why FB will never endorse such a dislike feature. Because they don't give half a shit about just how much of a dork you are as long as you're there, use it and hand them information. And, well, people don't tend to stay where they're constantly told that they're idiots.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Now I'm almost tempted to get onto Facebook. Except I'd never use a real name/address/email/etc., so maybe I'm still not tempted at all.
But let's see who tries to add 800 million or so to their list of enemies (minus a few who might even be actual friends)...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
But seriously, Facebook environment is so USSR or even PRC. AND Hotel California.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
I couldn't use the word, you know.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Maintaining a personal list of adversaries sounds to me like a needless security risk. What's the purpose? The only uses I can think of off the top of my head: Remembering which entities to avoid, and/or to warning others of to avoid the same.
Publishing a list of adversaries, accessible by those listed (either directly/intentionally or via hearsay, etc.) is foolish. For one thing, it invites unwanted attention from the listed entities, who may have otherwise been oblivious/benign. Further, it places one's self into the suspect pool of anyone listee who believes that they're on the receiving end of some (real or imagined) external harm. Finally, it tips one's hand, increasing the risk of being identified as the cause of any future action taken against those listed*.
As a brief example, consider Slashdot's relationship system. Your Freaks list looks like some decent targets for some good old fashioned abusive down-mods. Are you being harassed by an AC or experiencing an suspicious share of down-mods? Well, how large is your Foes list?
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Instead of a binary variable, friend or not friend, 1 or 0, It should be a floating point value with a range from -1 to 1. -1 = strong enemy, 1 = strong friend, anything in between indicates strength of the connection. Default value is 0 for everyone not specifically set to another value. Then you could set levels where certain info is revealed. For example: only friends above 0.9 get to post to my wall, anyone at 0 or below does not even see the wall. etc. That would make it a much more useful social service than now, where some random company that I want to keep up with gets the same privileges as my brother.
"Enemybook was developed in July 2007 by Kevin Matulef." http://www.enemybook.org/
Higher if they're hot chicks, since those are all fake accounts too.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Ironically, Facebook will exercise the ultimate dislike by banning this app.
Not that I disagree with anything you said, but somehow I feel like I just read an excerpt from the Bene Gesserit handbook.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Mod. Parent. Up.
You said it exactly - why a slashdot type system is better, and why FB would never allow it.
I agree completely.
Had to jump through heaps of blog posts to finally find the app: https://apps.facebook.com/enemygraph/
So you're saying, with the exception of fake accounts and zynga, Facebook = /.?
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Enemies? Where is the "Nemesis" button when you need it?
That's not as far-fetched as you think. We're raising the current generation of younglings with the impression that they get a gold star and excessive praise no matter what they do. There can be nothing negative ever.
This is why half the recent college grads I've been interviewing lately have unreasonable expectations. They've been raised in a fantasy land that doesn't exist in the real world.
So really, who cares? Facebook users are narcissists, insecure, asocial, or bogus "marketing accounts" [theglobeandmail.com].
Some/majority != All.
Every single person on my friends list is a real life friend or acquaintance. Admittedly some of them are old college friends who I pretty much lost touch with, but occasionally check up so see where they've gone in life, but most of them are people I still keep in touch with (IRL when possible), and at some point I've had a real life beer with every single one of them (all, big whopping, 60 of them). Obviously, then, I'm asocial, insecure, a narcissistic, or a bogus marketing account.
The same is true with my girlfriend (incidentally we're friends on Facebook, and share a house in life), and her mother, and my father's wife, and a vast majority of my friends. Yes, some of them are social media whores, I've had a friend go and try to friend all of my other friends a couple times, even though she never met a single one of them, and shares nothing in common with them (she's from my wilder youth, and most of them are from college), her "friend" total sits at 1500+. There is obviously something wrong there, in my 32 years on this earth I doubt I've even met 1500 people I could tolerate, much less consider "friends". A couple of my friends are spammy, and constantly need attention (which would be true without Facebook), and some of them are spammy because they use Facebook as a tool (one is one of the heads of our local Occupy movement, one is very involved in Occupy LA, and one is a Rave/scene promoter). Most of them are like me, and post once a month or so, and generally use it as a way to keep up to date with geographically distant friends and acquaintances.
Yes, I'm guessing a majority of social connections are bogus, insecure, asocial, or narcissists, but probably the vast majority of users aren't.
In the end, as with most things, Facebook is a tool. You can use it however you want, and what you get out of it depends on what you want from it. Even if 99.9999% of users were undesirable whatnots, it wouldn't effect me, or my use of it, in the slightest.
The "i don't use facespace!" crowd is the obnoxiously snug "i don't watch tv" hipsters of yesteryear. Good for you, but why should I care?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
like like
Hide your shield.
There are obviously exceptions to pretty much any rule where we're talking about human conduct, but that doesn't take away from the fact that facebook is a problem for many people, allowing them to replace real interaction with superficial "friends" (and then when that doesn't fix their self-esteem problems, go on quests for more and more pseudo-friends, the same as an alcoholic goes after more and more booze to "fix" their problems).
Facebook is not only an enabler, it's also become the instigator in many cases. If it were to disappear tomorrow, long-term, society would be better off.
Of course I'm only talking about real accounts - the millions of fake ones are just a normal market reaction to people trying to make a buck any way they can, manipulating the system for their benefit, same as the SEO scam artists.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
I'll take whatever mod hit I get...
although it'd be funny to lose karma for this statement.
I'm a buddhist, so the enemy button seems, well, sad.
In order to label any person an enemy, you have to then
actively seek them out on Facebook. Sure, they could
appear on a friend list of a friend, but you're still going to
have to do at least 2 actions (clicks) to make them an
enemy.
Why?
Yes, grudges, hatred, retribution. However, if you are $religion
I'm sure your religion like most talk about forgiveness. And
even if you can't bring to forgive. Forget is pretty good too.
I remember all of my enemies from High School. And currently
they are now my friends on Facebook. Even the ones that did
some pretty long-lasting bad stuff. I'm sure some were even
surprised when I accepted their friend request.
Time heals all wounds... chemically. The sharp edges of a
memory get rounded off... and eventually they are whitewashed
into the background. That's why even a contentious relationship
is remembered with fondness over time.
If you read this far, thank you. It might mean you RTFA too.
Specific to TFA, his enemy button is more social commentary,
about how it's become taboo to show dislike or disfavor, since
the "social aspect" of the internet is actually directed to marketing.
And no one welcomes negativity to their cash cow.
It would even open you up to some potential legal issues when a
person clicks someone as an enemy and that person, EITHER OF
THEM, end up dead. (IANAL) but anyone that lives in the US, knows
what I'm talking about.
They say you can't sell an "enemy click" to an advertiser.
But I call BS on that... I'm sure an enterprising person could create
an algo that correlates enemies as having traits perhaps opposite
enough to make them a selectable demographic.
[FWIW, IP claim there, at least until "America Invents" takes hold]
It will be interesting to see if the app gets to stick around. /. FB's lawyers fresh off their
I hope they adhered to ALL of the TOS for apps... because I'm
sure that now that this has been
we'll sue if you ask for FB credentials will be looking into it.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
All Social Media is about the delusion that the diversity of the whole wide world can be boiled down to everyone who's just like you and everyone else who's wrong and must be censored. 'Hate' means fb'rs would have to motivated sufficiently to even consider that someone who's not them is even worthy of attention however negative. This is a mistake. In fact the very thought is wrong and must be censored. Sorry, but those are the rules.
Isn't that the basis for pretty much all marketing?
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
Facebook is not only an enabler, it's also become the instigator in many cases. If it were to disappear tomorrow, long-term, society would be better off.
If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, then something just like it would show up the next day. All social media (since newsgroups, at least) has been vocally dominated by people desperately seeking attention, and using it as a crutch for their own psychological problems. This pre-exists the internet, go to a typical trendy college bar. Go hang out with your obscenely outgoing co-worker... Go to your local shopping mall and listen to the screaming teenagers (which was the social media of my generation, ignoring IRC and BBSs for us nerds).
People said the same stuff your saying about AOL > Geocities/Angelfire > Livejournal > Myspace, and now Twitter. Yes, there are problems with them, but if mature people use them maturely, then these problems are mostly mitigated. The same can be said of things like alcohol, idiots will use them and degrade themselves, but some of us can enjoy a tasty glass of scotch after dinner and be fine. Do the idiots degrade the responsible ones? Only if the responsible ones can't ignore the idiots.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
You're a rarity. Most people don't bother culling accounts - their innate insecurity, which led them to friend total strangers in the first place to bolster their sense of self-worth, prevents that.
Ok, so you state that a lot of Facebook users are insecure.
This sort of behaviour leads to some funny results. One of my friends, as part of a study, was asked to contact - by phone - a bunch of people picked at random from a person's friends list for a marketing project. These were all people the person had said they knew because "I don't just friend anybody..." Not one of them knew the guy.
Alright, so at least one guy has friended a bunch of people on Facebook that he doesn't know.
Facebook == lame.
This is the part I don't get. Having insecure users doesn't imply that Facebook is lame.
(Also, what's with the whole "foo == bar" construct anyway? It doesn't make sense to me, shouldn't it be something more like "foo.bar == true"?)
Anybody want a peanut?
If you really want to dislike something, Unicode 6.2 provides a "thumbs down" character (U+1F44E) that you can put in a comment. It isn't supported by many fonts yet, but that will change. Of course, if you REALLY dislike something, Unicode 6.2 also provides a "pile of poo" character (U+1F4A9).
You sir, win the gold star for anecdotal evidence using the phrase "part of a study" - which lends credence without adding any actual support.
I want to be able to flag certain people or concepts as being un-interesting, so they will never appear in the scrolling stories. Jerry and Elaine may be my friends, but George isn't, and I just don't care to read anything George says on Jerry's or Elaine's "wall." I would like George to just vanish from my viewpoint. George shouldn't know that I find him un-interesting, and neither should Jerry or Elaine or anyone else. That feature alone would eliminate 90% of the "spam" on social media services.
Most of the posts I see on my Facebook news feed are news articles and music videos shared by friends, not their own personal experiences and doings.
So, yeah, I'd love to be able to "dislike" news articles that I find upsetting but not worth writing an actual reply to. I'd like to easily "dislike" a track that churns my stomach (Google/YouTube could implement that too, but in their case it would provide data for populating a "suggestion" list that I might actually want to check out.)
Plus if the likes and dislikes are added up like they are at other sites I visit, you can get a real quick feel for what other people think about comments people have made. You know someone has made a good discussion point when you see things like +140/-130 and a total of ten -- that's a post that pushed buttons!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Should Not Be Alive
2. Should Never Have Been Born.
Well, that and the fact that with the economy being the way it's been since they entered college, "reasonable expectations" are basically ONE bowl of gruel for a hard day's work.
Facebook seems useful to those who are less technically aware. Rather than getting to know a range of applications email, forums, instant messaging or using a range of web sites and completely unaware of the privacy and exploitation issues, just simply use Facebook to communicate with family and friends. They will also push no using family and friends to join.
It's the simple use of a communications medium for the technologically simple, this combined with a mobile phone is pretty much all they understand and all they need. 'It is the way of things', the technologically limited will only use technology that is easily and simply accessible (they will then spend hours on end tweaking and pressing buttons et al thinking how bright they are, rather than how they are being manipulated by sick and perverted doctorates in psychology).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
This may be because people are worried about being rude and rejecting someone they really do know but have forgotten.
oh please
WAAH INTERNET BULLIES MADE MEH KILL MESELF
all of the capitals in this post are intentional so mr slashdot filter can please go away thank you.
just came out today
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
After reading all your post, all I got out of it is that you hate marketing.
NO - I hate the lies behind bubbles, whether it was the housing bubble, the current student loan bubble, or the lies behind the social media bubble. Until they produce hard, reproducible statistics (and the fact that they haven't when they could, is very telling) to prove otherwise, I'm going to continue to say what the studies show, that it's crap for insecure people and lazy unimaginative marketers.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
Old School Obligatory!
"Please Sir, I want some more!"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm tempted to join Facebook now just to play it backwards! You know, like we turned "Damn Yankee" into a compliment.
"Ooh! Would you be my Enemy?"
"Hate me on Facebook!"
But yes, as someone else said this has been done.
But tying into the Employers snooping on Facebook, it would be funny if they asked "why does your Facebook page contain nothing but enemies?!"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
that's a post that pushed buttons!
It got a smile, so more than a golf clap, but less than a LOL etc. Note that I am serious in providing comedy feedback here; you got the twist right -- it should happen as close to the end of the sentence as possible. (My favorite example: "Great minds think a lot", because the twist isn't the last word -- it's the last syllable.)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.