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
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?
(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.
> 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.
Complaining about people not liking their ideas whilst referring to people who he disagrees with as "NPC". Trying to dehumanize people he disagrees with.
Hypocrite much?
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.
Every browser that I'm aware of already has bookmarks. You should try that feature. It works really well.
We're talking about Twitter users, you insensitive clod!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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
I've thought along the same lines, maybe adding a -1 dafuq? and +1 Brutal.
But yes - Slashdot's mod system should be adopted by others. It isn't perfect, but I haven't seen anything better.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Don't forget the leftwing nutjobs too. I drive a Prius, I recently got cut off by a large pickup truck with a bumper sticker saying they will cut off Prius. I live in a rural areas, Pickup Trucks are common, because they are often needed for their livelihood. My Livelyhood requires me to commute 30 miles to work, so I got a car with the best gas mileage that I could afford at the time. The pickup truck driver sees Prius owners as a threat because Prius Owners has/had a tenancy to be preachy and he probably fears that if we have our way we will push him to get rid of his truck that he enjoys and uses for his livelyhood, and get the same little car that I have. Now that he was clearly targeting me, I no longer like that particular driver, but I always need to be cautious around larger pickup trucks because I know they see me as a threat. This sounds stupid, but it is a sign of our times. We see our differences a threat vs a benefit.
You need a big rear window sticker that reads, "Prius Owners for Second Amendment Solutions to Traffic Problems"
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.