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?
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.
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 have been using the "Angry" or "Laughter" reaction when I disagree with something.
Great, that's what Facebook needs. A neckband patrol downvoting anything it finds mildly offensive, like the one we have here in Slashdot
Using bind
Works wonders.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
And dislike speech.
Dislikers gonna dislike.
New Tarantino Film: The Dislikeful Eight.
Oh, and Marvel has a new villain now: The Dislikemonger.