Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Is Testing a Dislike Button (thedailybeast.com)
Ever since the inception of the Like button, Facebook users have been asking for a "dislike" button. Today, Facebook is testing a "downvote" button with certain users in the comment section of posts within Facebook groups and on old Facebook memories content. The Daily Beast reports: The feature appears to give users the ability to downrank certain comments. This is the first time Facebook has tested anything similar to a "dislike" button and it could theoretically allow for content that's offensive or relevant to be pushed to the bottom of a comment feed. In 2016, citing Facebook executives, Bloomberg said a dislike button "had been rejected on the grounds that it would sow too much negativity" to the platform. It's unclear how widely the dislike button is being tested. Facebook regularly tests features with small subsets of users that never end up rolling out to the broader public. Most users currently are only able to either Like or Reply to comments in a thread. The downvote option could have radical implications on what types of discussions and comments flourish on the platform. While it could theoretically be used to de-rank inflammatory or problematic comments, it could also easily be used as a tool for abuse.
Like a grenade. You thought Facebook was bombastic before? Watch the fury when you can thumbs-down something. The cesspool will get deeper still. This doesn't do anything but start fights.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I click to say that I dislike Facebook?
Sorry... I ran out of downmod points.
How would you like to be the schmuck they tried this feature on on first?
"Mr. TWX, having reviewed your social-media footprint, we feel that you're a good fit for our new feature. We expect that dozens, nay HUNDREDS of dislikes will accrue on your posts. Please enjoy beta-testing this new feature!"
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Quoting the president is the media's job.
Seth MacFarlane already covered what happens to society after the introduction of the down vote and it wasn't good.
That depends entirely on how dislikes are interpreted. Using them to suppress controversy would be a silly move on Facebook's part.
Piling on dislikes is actually a very powerful tool for cyber bullying, particularly when a platform uses rating to hide comments or ban people.
I actually think that each of the subjective dimensions should be symmetric (on Facebook and even here on Slashdot), but the playing field should still be tilted in favor of the positive side. You want to make it easier for people to do and be good. In a simple implementation, clicking "Like" can be easy, while clicking "Dislike" can involve an extra step to say why.
However I think that Like-Dislike is basically a weak and almost meaningless dimension. In terms of meaning, I think you can argue that it should increase the general weight of a comment's positive ratings, but on its own there is little meaning to it. Therefore I think the better dimensions of sentiment should have clear meanings. Dimensions such as true-false (or informative-disinformative or valid-invalid) or funny-unfunny (to me). For example, if you say a comment is false, then you would have to indicate which part was false and why. (And if it turned out you are lying, then YOUR own reputation should suffer. More symmetry.)
(Bells and whistles in dimensional thinking for sentiments: I also think the dimensions should be able to evolve over time, and that the dimensions of earned public reputation should age to encourage people to act better and see their reputations gradually improve. People with earned negative reputations should be easier to filter against, thus allowing them to be as negative as they like for the (negative) benefit of people who actually want to spend their time that way. Also, a person who has an earned reputation in a particular dimension should get extra weight, as with a rating from a proven funny person (based on reactions from other people) counting more heavily in rating another comment as funny or unfunny.)
The clumsy, ad hoc, and poorly considered dimensions of Slashdot's moderation are an excellent example of how NOT to do it. Take that "troll" dimension, for example. (I wish someone would.) What is it supposed to mean? I think that the dimension may have a catchy label, but it lacks meaning. Some combination of "negative politeness" and "negative truth" combined with an earned reputation for "negative agreement"? (I think the general meaning on today's Slashdot is that a sock puppet has a mod point to burn, but that might be jealous projection since I never get a mod point.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Slashdot had both negative and positive moderation since the 90's and it does work. The problem with Facebook's likes/dislikes/etc are that they ENTIRELY opaque in how they operate to anyone except the people who literally work in the "feed ordering" division at FB -- and even then, if you were to leave for even a week they could completely change it again and you'd have no idea how it works. Of course, if you are a paid propagandist, you probably have the most time
If only someone could come up with a decentralized system for people to post content and users could decide how to order that content for themselves. Why we even need these companies whose chief "service" is data mining their customers is beyond me.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Re "Using them to suppress controversy would be a silly move"
Whats the point of having a SJW button if its only for that account?
Say a user only likes their news from 4 US broadcasters and 3 US "digital" newspapers?
Keep that filter list just for that one users account?
So that user is never going to be able to search for, find, discover any other news?
Make the filter global to the social media brand and ensure all users votes remove all non approved links, comments, images, reviews, transcripts, books, politics, music, cartoons, art?
Say a US university funds an event and a "professor" says something that could get the US gov interested? Something about US politics, crypto, DRM, police methods?
Can that university down vote all news of that event so it cant be searched, cant be linked to, the video now never existed and their own statement disavowing the video never exists?
A memory hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for that account? A memory hole for the brand of social media?
Could a gov, university, approved faith group, NGO, political party request a SJW vote multiplier? So one approved staff member can remove all comments, links with their one vote?
Do SJW get to link 3 or 4 big social media brands "votes" with a search engine monopoly and demand results, links and sites get deranked?
Can one US political party step in and say all links, comments on some topics get removed (not just deranked) for security "reasons" and that the people "voted" with clicks?
Can one SJW social media site then project its deranking onto another brands search results? Can a gov, brand, NGO, faith group take the dislike button "results" and demand sites, links, comments get removed?
US freedom of speech and freedom after speech is looking rather less complex than having global SJW rules remove and ban content.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
What platforms even still allow down votes? Every relatively large site I have ever been on that had down voting ended up removing it.
How about Slashdot?
I currently have mod points and the menu still includes offtopic, flamebait, troll, redundant, and overrated.
Does Slashdot no longer qualify as a "relatively large site"?
I note that, at least, trolls and SJWs have a track record of using such moderation, in ways other than its stated purpose, to down-moderate posting of opinions with which they disagree. (This is not to say that people of other leanings don't misuse it in such a way. Just that these are the ones with which I have personal experience.)
Want to test it? Try posting anything questioning a politically-correct paradigm, such as gun control or global warming, in an (on-topic) article near the top of the front page. Then check your score every few minutes for a couple hours.
These down-mods do let some people try to turn Slashdot into an echo-chamber for their ideologies. But so far such efforts have not been totally successful. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
And I haven't really seen any bad abuse there. The dislikes are usually very small compared to likes. I actually dislike social media sites that only expect you to like everything.
I Dislike Facebook...
Zoid.com
I don't think his ego could handle too many dislikes.
Now I wish there was a "Funny Troll" mod option
Where is this button?
I want to press it.
This is why we all love the great work they do at Facebook!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
People have been killed http://www.businessinsider.com... or had their house set on fire https://www.aol.com/2011/11/03... for unfriending somebody. Dislike at your own risk.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
For example, if someone posts "Climate change is a serious threat," I could dislike it because either:
People will use Dislike for both. Note that the existing Angry emoji option has the same problem. Also note that Like doesn't have the problem.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
I have been using the "Angry" or "Laughter" reaction when I disagree with something.
Don't show the dislikes. Keep it internal to the system. Just make disliked things disappear.
Given how my postings are voted, I think the "interesting" vote is for that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Great, that's what Facebook needs. A neckband patrol downvoting anything it finds mildly offensive, like the one we have here in Slashdot
...do Facebook.
What I want is an eyeroll button. They've already got laughter, which you can use to laugh at people. I want an eye roll, which doesn't even dignify their idiotic comment with a laugh. I would settle for side eye.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Using bind
Works wonders.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Case in point, Slashdot is mired with negativity precisely because some mods abuse the system to mod down a meritorious post. They would have to think twice if they were required to mod something up 10 times before modding something down. In any case, I'm sure the metamods will ensure that the bad moderators will fade into oblivion in the long run, but the short term damage is done.
I once had a signature.
I have some family members that seem to be dragging the dregs of some site and pull up crap that is months and years old, as if it is relevant now. Would really like a way of showing my dislike for that old crap. I want NEW crap! If it's not warm, why bother! (Yes, there is some sarcasm here, but there is also the bitter truth that this does happen all the time)
Opportunist snorted:
You think? How many people will "friend" celebrities for the sole purpose of downvoting them, if only to see the fans go bananas.
Your comments - not just this one, but all of them - on this topic reveal your foundational ignorance of how "friendship" works on FB. Or, to put it another way, you're clearly talking out your ass here.
To begin with, FB limits everyone to a maximum of 5,000 "friends". For users who are actually celebrities, that's a pretty small number. In order to add a new "friend", a celebrity who already has 5,000 must first de-friend one of those users to open up a slot.
In practice, that never happens, unless the wannabe is someone they know, like, and are already actual friends with IRL - such as, for instance, another celebrity. (And, since the person who monitors their feed is almost undoubtedly a personal assistant, rather than the celeb him/herself, the add is usually arranged by personal assistants, rather than by the user him/herself, anyway.)
The relationship the vast majority of FB users have with celebrities they love (or hate) is as "followers", which is quite a different and less privileged status.
And then there's the matter of "blocking" FB users (which is trivially easy to do). Blocking a user removes them from your view, and prevents them from seeing any of your posts. Act like an asshole often enough (and just how often "often enough" is is purely a matter of choice on the part of the person you've set out to annoy), and your trolling ass will be blocked. The user you're trying to harass promptly becomes invisible to you, and anything and everything you've posted disappears from his/her view, as well.
So, no, the scenario you find so amusing to contemplate will, in practice, never, ever happen ...
Check out my novel.
How exciting watching the great innovations of the 21st century unfold before our eyes.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
And dislike speech.
Dislikers gonna dislike.
New Tarantino Film: The Dislikeful Eight.
Oh, and Marvel has a new villain now: The Dislikemonger.
On Facebook, a lot of times, I don't want to "mod the post down". I just want this post, and any post like it, to be gone from my newsfeed.
I've got Facebook friends across the political spectrum. Some I want to see their personal posts, but I don't want to see anything political from either the ones with Antifa leanings, or the hard-core Trumpunists.
If I could say "Never show me anything from (these people) which mentions Trump", I'd be much happier with Facebook. (Well, somewhat less disgusted with it, anyway.)
Well I guess that leaves something for the handful of remaining mothers and elderly that still use facebook.