Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Plans To Remove 'Like' Button in a Bid To Improve the Quality of Debate, Report Says (telegraph.co.uk)
Twitter is planning to remove the ability to "like" tweets in a radical move that aims to improve the quality of debate on the social network, UK news outlet The Telegraph (paywalled) reports, citing CEO Jack Dorsey's comments at a recent company event. From the report: Founder Jack Dorsey last week admitted at a Twitter event that he was not a fan of the heart-shaped button and that it would be getting rid of it "soon." The feature was introduced in 2015 to replace "favourites," a star-shaped button that allowed people to bookmark tweets to read later. Update: In a statement, Twitter neither confirmed nor denied the report, adding that it was indeed in the process of rethinking "everything." It said, "As we've been saying for a while, we are rethinking everything about the service to ensure we are incentivizing healthy conversation, that includes the like button. We are in the early stages of the work and have no plans to share right now."
Wonder if the bookmark option will come back. That made more sense to me anyway.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Such voting systems tend to let every discussion platform devolve into something as low as politics. And by that I don't mean real world politics, but what politicians tend to do when conversing with each other or the public.
get rid of rightwing nutjobs
Finally they're adding a dislike bu... oh wait. Never mind.
It's like to be able to say 'like' or 'don't like' or 'funny', 'sad', etc, similar to what Bookface do. Add more option, don't take the option away. Learn from how your users want to use your product, don't dictate.
The feature was introduced in 2015 to replace "favourites," a star-shaped button that allowed people to bookmark tweets to read later.
You don't have enough time to read a tweet now, but you do have enough time to realize that you should read it later?
After you've banned all the dissenting voices?
Or, as a certain ideological orientation is wont to do, are we redefining debate to mean obedient agreement?
Let's face it, Twitter debates look like this, removing a 'like' button will do little to improve the situation.
[Like]
(that's all) -- seriously removing like could jest result in lots of comments like "yes", "agree", or "ok"
Gimme a break. Twitter sells rage while attempting to maintain a certain agenda.
Check your premises.
How was favorites different than like? Was it just a name change? I never stopped using bookmarks/favorites as anything more than bookmarks.
Yeah, favourites and likes are not the best way to keep track of tweets, but short of using the web browser bookmark functionality, there isn't an easy way to bring up a structured 'reference library' of tweets that you wish to refer back to.
Twitter is often not used as a simple social media platform, it's a publishing platform that enforces odd behaviour in terms of limited tweet sizes, threads of tweets, and so on.
What a lot of people would like is a tweet reference library, with categories (user-defined tags, rather than a hierarchy, would be preferred IMO), that does not indicate any form of endorsement of the tweet, or indeed any desire to notify the publisher.
Facebook-style Likes, Angers, etc, are nice for a social media platform for people when posting their cat picture and so on. They're a blunt tool of populism when it comes to platforms that are more than just that - especially when it comes to politics.
Isn't the 'like' button one of the metrics on a tweet's popularity. Wonder how posters on twitter will take this, lol. And yea... "Quality of debate" in less than 240 characters.
starts sliding into the sea the very next day?
Too many people still like Donald trump and pay attention to his likes and his followers likes instead of all the deep state bots calling everyone Russian bots!
What am I gonna do?
Oh, I know, I'll just stop them from seeing the likes and take the mocking bird a chirp further!
"Hey everyone, see all those Donald Trump posts. Nobody likes them. Nobody likes him. Listen to our programming"
People who speak proper English can't have a productive debate and always keep to 140 characters or less. People who "excel" at Twitter are why Youtube stars are soon going to be running the world.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
> It may work out well, if most of the community is sensible and there's impartial moderators that do their job. But I've seen the opposite happen often enough, where dissenting opinions which are factually more correct than the simplistic bullshit get 'downvoted into oblivion' while the simplistic bullshit stays on top (using standard sorting).
That's a problem on Slashdot.
Somebody will post "the boss / execs will never go to jail!" and that's instantly plus five. I point out that the boss was arrested a few months ago and is looking at ten to twenty years, and provide a link, that gets modded to -1.
Very often what's modded up the most is the opposite of the plain facts, while a link to thr actual facts gets modded down because it doesn't fit the narrative.
You need a "smiley face" to indicate that you "like" something? Are you functionally illiterate? Mentally challenged? A child under the age of 4?
I don't respond to AC's.
Every social media platform tries to eliminate the "like" button lately. You see, if there is a "like" button and no "dislike" button (which can be abused by the internet thought patrol to silence dissidents), all voices will be heard and most importantly their impact will be assessed (to a degree). Which isn't good if you are progressive CEO of a "hip" tech startup who believes in political bullying and the silencing of "non-progressive" voices.
because who has time to read 140 characters now?!
TL;DR
twitter is horrid and i lose respect for anybody who actively uses it
(that's all) -- seriously removing like could jest result in lots of comments like "yes", "agree", or "ok"
Right. So? Does clicking a little "smiley face" or a "thumbs up" indicate something deeper than "yes", "agree", or "OK"?
I don't respond to AC's.
Every browser that I'm aware of already has bookmarks. You should try that feature. It works really well.
I don't respond to AC's.
[Evangelize!] [Like] [Meh] [Dislike] [Belittle] [Threaten]
I agree, Slashdot's mod system is better than most.
Perhaps it would be helpful to have a "-1 I disagree" or "-1 fuck this guy", along with "+1 I believe this too" that are decoys - they don't actually do anything. Lol
The minority in every context has to face the results of peer pressure. It's subjective as to how horrific that pressure may be. You special isolated snow flakes might freak out over relatively nothing. You also might be anti-social and need that popular peer pressure to trigger EVOLVED emotions so you either adapt to function in the social group or you leave and try to survive alone (which is easy in our modern disconnected abstracted society.)
The majority power sets the guidelines... unless authoritarian, then the power is disproportionate... which to the minority perspective looks like almost the same thing since the way such things are carried out are not by seeing the whole majority crowd acting as one-- they are almost always represented in some way by a few entities.
Up/Down voting is NOT bullying. Peer pressure / social pressure can seem similar to bullying but are not the same; although, depending on how you define it and the situation it can be the same. Bullying can be a parent forcing rules upon a child; trying to define it so it can't apply to that but also applies everywhere it's used is not so easy. Question is then, is all bullying bad? or do we play legal games trying to define it so it allows stuff we approve of? (like terrorism for example which ends up being subjective hypocrisy because that approach doesn't work.) The reasonable end position is that bullying is not always bad (by far better than accepting hypocrisy-- something we now seem to be doing instead.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The only winning move is not to use twitter. :)
Because it is the perfect medium for twats.
L'Idiot
It's a horrible place where the most horrible people are given soap boxes. I changed my password to something I wouldn't remember, logged out and never looked back. Facebook is in the same boat. Never got instagram. Seems to be just people posing and pretending to have lives, when in reality they spend most of their time trying to show that they have lives.
Twitter is a shithole and @jack is a nazi.
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 = NAZI FAGGOT RAY MORRIS PUSHED WHITE SUPREMACIST PROPAGANDA
Why the fuck don't these social media companies provide a "Hate" button? Wake the fuck up.
Any bets one whether the button replacing this button will be a yellow moon or a green clover?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
You NPC monkeys are being incorporated into a mocking bird script. You don't like, you don't debate. You listen and do what you are f***ing told. Understand?
who would've(off) thunk.
It can be a problem how the platform shares anything you "like" with others that follow you. I regularly see the adult content shared on twitter to generate subscriptions to online video platforms due to someone I follow. He doesn't have terrible taste, but I don't really need to know what gets him off.
Probably. Violence, especially murder and terrorism, used to be controversial, and if someone advocated in favor of murdering random people to affect political change, we all used to take it for granted that a supermajority of people would condemn it, making the fuckwit feel like an outsider. The prohibition against murder was bipartisan.
Now that the prohibition against murder and terrorism is losing popularity, if you're one of the older folks to whom murder is still considered a very bad idea (i.e you feel strongly that it should be avoided and you'd strongly prefer it remain prohibited), and if you also happen to be running an interactive website, you might be very tempted to just start deleting whatever "let's mail some bombs" or "let's go shoot up the synagogue" or "cops shouldn't be nice to suspects" that those kind of people post these days.
Yes, it's lazy. We should all be debating and persuading Republicans that terrorism is anti-American and against their own selfish interest, despite how Republicans' supernatural beliefs state they'll be rewarded in the afterlife if they make life on Earth unpleasant and horrific enough for heathens. And if we were talking about a public platform where people go to persuade others to adopt their pro-murder or anti-murder views, I would agree that we should all band together to protect free speech. On a public forum, Republicans should still be able to post "let's go murder a doctor who helps single mothers avoid economic hell that lasts for over a generation" and it should remain uncensored, where society shames the pro-murder person instead of just shutting them up or ignoring them. The pro-murder person should see that lots of people disagree with them, so they at least have a chance of doing a reality check.
But as long as we're talking about someone's privately-owned for-profit computers, the lazy approach is acceptable and I can see why a lot of people would just do that. I would do it on my computer, too. If you're worried about me deleting pro-murder posts on my computer, maybe just don't upload that shit to me in the first place.
Just remember, lazy people: when you kick pro-terrorism people off your message board, you're just subjectively muting Republicans, not actually silencing or opposing them. When you come out of your bubble to see election results, you might end up shocked by how out-of-touch you were. Trashcanning Republican speech makes sense in the short term, but if you don't speak out against terrorism and explain why it's a bad thing instead of a good thing, help people to think about their real-life experiences which contradict all their mystic teachings, then you aren't really doing anything about society's newly-increased tolerance for violence.
So, when people start saying "wrong" things, your counter-strategy needs a balance. Do the cheap easy thing where it's warranted, do the hard thing where that is warranted.
When Twitter allowed free speech I don't remember a concentrated effort to kill their company like we're seeing with Gab. I wish the coastal elite who can de-platform anyone who doesn't play ball would at least try to hide their political agenda - I don't like knowing that I'm living in a repressive dystopia. The current state of affairs isn't good for my soul.
Twitter it seems will not stop until the company is dead.
The fact is that Twitter can never reconcile that to have a popular social network, they will have to allow for people of differing views to make use of it. They keep dancing around that basic fact yet will not embrace it, even though any time they get close it leads to more users.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Twitr wansa imprv t qualty of Dbate, so theyR remvg t LIKE butn? I wndr if they cood do NEthing else 2 imprv t qualty of Dbate... like, I dunno, mA B doin away w the bullsht character limit? #280stillNOTenuf!
You don't decide anything you dumb faggot propagandist nazi lol. Fox is a traitor's propaganda and you're just a willing cocksucker. You will be shot, your hero hanged.
Every thought that every person has doesn't need to have feedback that it was 'right'.
Master Debater. :)
[($)]
Yeah @jack. That's going to fix twitter, you fascist enabling coward.
Slashdot
A very smart person told me that, if Twitter is not an agora for you (an enjoyable one), then you're not doing it right. I think he is right and it's harder than I seemed like it would be. It's kind of hard to curate a set of folks to follow that remains interesting and reasonably free of mindless trolling/counter-trolling/r99999. Especially in the political arena.
TIL Twitter has debates.
/s (?)
--- Keep the choice with the user..
I can't help but read this as increasing the rate in which people readily agree with whatever ideas their blue checkmark agitators tell them they are supposed to agree with.
Even North Korean elections aren't this disingenuous.