In order to comment on the wall of the company's page, you need to like it.
I've liked many pages just so I could tell the company (or politician) how they can best sod off.
And in doing so, increasing their like counter.
I guess the requirement of "like before post" is to keep comments on "how to sod off" from their page. Or at least trick those who still insist on those comments into giving a like in return first.
If anything, this only shows that people are willing to lie for nothing but peanuts.
If you were a celebrity and accepted a big sum to shoot an advertisment, would you be surprised if that commercial was aired? Of course not! That's what the money was for!
And if you accept a discount or participation in sweepstakes to make a public statement that you like something? Come crying "But I didn't really mean it" and you admit not only to be a sock puppet, but a cheap sock puppet.
Sometimes I *like* something because I want to follow it.
Feel free to do so.
Feel free to put a personal message in the name field of an order form if there is no field for messages. But don't be surpriseed if it shows up on the parcel as recipient. I think the technical term for such an idea is "nice try.".
I might not like some of my local politicians, but I still like their pages just so I can follow what train wreck policy they might be putting to a vote that week. Liking it makes it conveniently show up on my newsfeed.
You're making use of a side effect of a "like" statement. It's like using aspirin to prevent heart diesease and being surprised that it makes your heqadache go away.
Yes, bookmarks and follows would be nice features on fb. But simulating them by making use of the side effects of other features is at your own risk.
but if they redefine commonly used words as part of their commercial activity, they shouldn't be surprised if people try to sue them for misrepresentation. I'm not a legal expert, so I can't comment on the legal validity of this sort of suit.
I'm neither, but I wonder how treating "like" as "like" could seen as "redefing sommonly used words" Could you eloaborate on that?
a redifinition happens when someone uses "like" as bookmark.
Or maybe "like" is an term with no formal meaning here and I'm just "liking" page because that's what we call "bookmarks" on this particular website.
Then use friggin bookmarks if you want bookmarks! But don't fake surprise when someone tells you that "like" means "like" and not "bookmark".
Misusing "likes" as bookmarks might work for a while, but so might do filling the amount on your checks with your lucky lottery numbers. "Oh I thought that "amount" is what lottery numbers are called on those forms"...
Don't blame anyone else for what you think something means.
If they had a dislike would they use that for anti-endorsements?
I doubt they would, but would do it without fraud or lies. "User iplayfast dislikes XY" is a completly valid conlcusion when you hit a hypothetic dislike button.
"But I clicked dislike to show how I love XY" does NOT hold water.
The fact that they couldn't use those clicks for ads is probably the whole reason why such a button does not exist. (which in turn should make you extra aware of the meaning of the like button)
You have to like a group or product just to be able to post on the page about it and be part of the discussion. So, if I see something I don't like, if I see a product that is a scam or that didn't work as advertised, I can't even post in a group discussing it unless i hit "like"
In short, they took other concepts like "subscribe", conflated them into their "like" button and now are trying to claim that because you hit the button called "like" that you actually like whatever it is.
That may have been their intent or not, but you still should not be surprised if someone takes your like at face value.
I bet you have seen lots of company statements bragging with their huge number of "likes". Have you ever heard any of them differentiate on what the users might have meant with "like"? No. Because it's all the same. Big number of likes = big money. If you hit like to show your dislike of something, you fell for their trap.
Show your dislike of something by keeping the like numbers low.
This would be a little like me replacing my doorbell with a button that says "I love surprise anal sex", and then publishing pictures of everyone who comes to visit me with the slogan "These people love surprise anal sex". Does that really seem legit?
Don't know and don't care. But would you be surprised if less people than before rang on your doorbell? Would YOU ring such a button if you don't like surprise anal sex?
Does a speed limit sign sometimes does not mean a speed limit? Does signing a contract for buying something that you don't have to pay the agreed sum? More or less, or not at all? Has the excuse of "But I thought it's opposite day today!" ever worked?
Things may not always mean what they say, but you should NOT be surprised if someone who doesn't know that "secret agreement" takes something at face value.
But the whole point - indeed, the only point - of giving something a "Like" is to share your opinion with others. Don't pretend to be surprised when the sharing happens.
No, that's an interpretation, but it isn't a correct one.
Can you offer any other interpretion of declaring "I like XY" in front of either your friends or in public?
You're clicking like to show others (either friends or the public) that you like something. Otherwise the button would be called "I don't care". And there is no reason to tell yourself what you like using facebook. (except some special medical conditions)
While I agree with you that your 5 points define one type of good manager, I disagree with your last sentence. For items 1-3 (like defining a "how to" or understanding different technical skill-sets), it is usually important that the manager HAS at least some technical background.
But a missing technical background is no problem if the manager in question is aware of it and instead accepts (technical) input from the team.
So being attractive is, in your mind, correlated with being unintelligent.
As I know about the quality of anecdotal evidence, I'm not going to call that "correlation". Espescially as I also know enough counter examples.
There is a correlation I observed, but that was related to the people who flocked to this special major. But that was not gender related and is a completly different story.
But there is a high probability that the less attractive women did not get their degrees by persuading the guy next door to do most of the assignments. (or at least to give hours and hours of dumbed down private lessons of "CS for Blondes and other Dummies")
Had such a case back then at our dorm. Poor guy spent most of his time doing the work for the girl next door instead of doing his own work. Well, she has a degree now, he hasn't.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to comment on the wall of the company's page, you need to like it.
I've liked many pages just so I could tell the company (or politician) how they can best sod off.
And in doing so, increasing their like counter.
I guess the requirement of "like before post" is to keep comments on "how to sod off" from their page. Or at least trick those who still insist on those comments into giving a like in return first.
If Facebook -- or anybody else -- wants to use my image or anything else I do to make money, then I want a piece of the action.
There are lots of company pages that offer discounts or other benefits for likes. Go ahead.
"Likes" do not represent something people like. So characterizing it as that in an ad is deceptive.
If hitting "like" might not mean "like", wouldn't that mean that "XY likes Z" might represent something else then "XY likes Z"?
So you add lots of personal interpretation to the "like" button but don't give the same leeway to other statements?
Have you proof that that relabeling ever actually happend or are you just IMAGINING that that happend?
Why would this be free if it is tied to conditions? It's a COMPENSATION for a service. (pushing like)
If you get a bag of $ for shooting a commercial, the money is the compensation and not "free money"
There is an option to "not like" something. don't "like" it.
If anything, this only shows that people are willing to lie for nothing but peanuts.
If you were a celebrity and accepted a big sum to shoot an advertisment, would you be surprised if that commercial was aired? Of course not! That's what the money was for!
And if you accept a discount or participation in sweepstakes to make a public statement that you like something? Come crying "But I didn't really mean it" and you admit not only to be a sock puppet, but a cheap sock puppet.
Fantastic idea!
Could such a button used for advertisments? Then I wouldn't hold my breath for it.
Sometimes I *like* something because I want to follow it.
Feel free to do so.
Feel free to put a personal message in the name field of an order form if there is no field for messages. But don't be surpriseed if it shows up on the parcel as recipient. I think the technical term for such an idea is "nice try.".
I might not like some of my local politicians, but I still like their pages just so I can follow what train wreck policy they might be putting to a vote that week. Liking it makes it conveniently show up on my newsfeed.
You're making use of a side effect of a "like" statement. It's like using aspirin to prevent heart diesease and being surprised that it makes your heqadache go away.
Yes, bookmarks and follows would be nice features on fb. But simulating them by making use of the side effects of other features is at your own risk.
Every time I read law stuff here, I wish I weren't a lawyer.
I like.
but if they redefine commonly used words as part of their commercial activity, they shouldn't be surprised if people try to sue them for misrepresentation. I'm not a legal expert, so I can't comment on the legal validity of this sort of suit.
I'm neither, but I wonder how treating "like" as "like" could seen as "redefing sommonly used words" Could you eloaborate on that?
a redifinition happens when someone uses "like" as bookmark.
Or maybe "like" is an term with no formal meaning here and I'm just "liking" page because that's what we call "bookmarks" on this particular website.
Then use friggin bookmarks if you want bookmarks! But don't fake surprise when someone tells you that "like" means "like" and not "bookmark".
Misusing "likes" as bookmarks might work for a while, but so might do filling the amount on your checks with your lucky lottery numbers. "Oh I thought that "amount" is what lottery numbers are called on those forms"...
Don't blame anyone else for what you think something means.
wait wait wait...
scroll up a few posts... someone posted
But, joking aside, I believe it should be illegal to use my name or image to endorse a product without me being explicitly asked, and compensated.
so some user was explicitly asked to give a like AND there actually was some form of compensation.
No. It means that you saw the button and had control of the mouse pointer and can be expected to know the meaning of the word "like".
You neither unwillingly clicked like (someone forced you or some malware faked a like click) and you knew that you were clicking.
If they had a dislike would they use that for anti-endorsements?
I doubt they would, but would do it without fraud or lies. "User iplayfast dislikes XY" is a completly valid conlcusion when you hit a hypothetic dislike button.
"But I clicked dislike to show how I love XY" does NOT hold water.
The fact that they couldn't use those clicks for ads is probably the whole reason why such a button does not exist. (which in turn should make you extra aware of the meaning of the like button)
Interpretation as "like" It would only be fraudulent if it would NOT say "like".
You have to like a group or product just to be able to post on the page about it and be part of the discussion. So, if I see something I don't like, if I see a product that is a scam or that didn't work as advertised, I can't even post in a group discussing it unless i hit "like"
In short, they took other concepts like "subscribe", conflated them into their "like" button and now are trying to claim that because you hit the button called "like" that you actually like whatever it is.
That may have been their intent or not, but you still should not be surprised if someone takes your like at face value.
I bet you have seen lots of company statements bragging with their huge number of "likes". Have you ever heard any of them differentiate on what the users might have meant with "like"? No. Because it's all the same. Big number of likes = big money. If you hit like to show your dislike of something, you fell for their trap.
Show your dislike of something by keeping the like numbers low.
This would be a little like me replacing my doorbell with a button that says "I love surprise anal sex", and then publishing pictures of everyone who comes to visit me with the slogan "These people love surprise anal sex". Does that really seem legit?
Don't know and don't care. But would you be surprised if less people than before rang on your doorbell? Would YOU ring such a button if you don't like surprise anal sex?
Does a speed limit sign sometimes does not mean a speed limit? Does signing a contract for buying something that you don't have to pay the agreed sum? More or less, or not at all? Has the excuse of "But I thought it's opposite day today!" ever worked?
Things may not always mean what they say, but you should NOT be surprised if someone who doesn't know that "secret agreement" takes something at face value.
No, that's an interpretation, but it isn't a correct one.
Can you offer any other interpretion of declaring "I like XY" in front of either your friends or in public?
You're clicking like to show others (either friends or the public) that you like something. Otherwise the button would be called "I don't care". And there is no reason to tell yourself what you like using facebook. (except some special medical conditions)
You could stick to the "gold" metaphor as they usually still get paid as they were golden but are as usefull as a golden life buoy.
While I agree with you that your 5 points define one type of good manager, I disagree with your last sentence. For items 1-3 (like defining a "how to" or understanding different technical skill-sets), it is usually important that the manager HAS at least some technical background.
But a missing technical background is no problem if the manager in question is aware of it and instead accepts (technical) input from the team.
Short and complete answer: Depends on the manager.
It's only bad if he thinks he can tell the developers how to do the technical part of their work.
If it was a money problem, public libraries would offer a convinient solution.
The true luxury that "privileged" kids have are parents who manage to get them intrested in reading.
Which really begs the question which idiot designed the machine with a USB port for updates and NOT protecting it properly!
So being attractive is, in your mind, correlated with being unintelligent.
As I know about the quality of anecdotal evidence, I'm not going to call that "correlation". Espescially as I also know enough counter examples.
There is a correlation I observed, but that was related to the people who flocked to this special major. But that was not gender related and is a completly different story.
Basically, yes.
But there is a high probability that the less attractive women did not get their degrees by persuading the guy next door to do most of the assignments. (or at least to give hours and hours of dumbed down private lessons of "CS for Blondes and other Dummies")
Had such a case back then at our dorm. Poor guy spent most of his time doing the work for the girl next door instead of doing his own work. Well, she has a degree now, he hasn't.