Facebook Begins Testing Reactions and 'Dislike' Button in Messenger [Update: Officially Launched]

[adamneer]

Well, that's the thing, there is a difference, unlike with disagreement, agreement often means agreement with the reasoning so there's really nothing to add beyond just something like "agree" or repeating the same reasoning as was already provided. And if there is, then someone could certainly post that actually adding something new/different. Seems like the "like" feature remained mostly in relation to that so that threads don't needlessly get cluttered up with "agree" posts that mostly either don't say anything more than that or just repeat the same reasoning and the same things again.

There are a number of discussions in the site and forum feedback section here about all of this with comments from the staff that go into more details and more explanations and discussions of it all.

Thank you - This is the first rational explanation I've seen as to why a "Like" button should exist without a "Dislike" option. Personally, I have always found it socially degrading to only allow people to "Like" (agree) with things you post online for several reasons: 1. It turns online social interaction into a competition for acceptance 2. It gives others a much easier way to express agreement with something than it does to express disagreement and 3. It promotes the idea that we should only be exposed to positivity in relation to our thoughts, while shunning the notion of opposition.

As to how you'd avoid cluttering threads with "agree" posts, I really have no answer. But then again, why is it socially acceptable to agree with something without explanation, but not to disagree? Why is the threshold different for diametrically opposing viewpoints?

 

[purplehaze0]

We don't live in some bizarre utopia and a negative reaction is most certainly justified at times. expressing that is no big deal on fb or even mac rumours.

 

[C DM]

Thank you - This is the first rational explanation I've seen as to why a "Like" button should exist without a "Dislike" option. Personally, I have always found it socially degrading to only allow people to "Like" (agree) with things you post online for several reasons: 1. It turns online social interaction into a competition for acceptance 2. It gives others a much easier way to express agreement with something than it does to express disagreement and 3. It promotes the idea that we should only be exposed to positivity in relation to our thoughts, while shunning the notion of opposition.

As to how you'd avoid cluttering threads with "agree" posts, I really have no answer. But then again, why is it socially acceptable to agree with something without explanation, but not to disagree? Why is the threshold different for diametrically opposing viewpoints?

I don't really know about the "socially acceptable" part about it all, as much as just basically going by how that aspect of it has been applied here based on various discussions about it in the past. Again, at least part of the difference likely lies in the much higher potential that the "agree" doesn't have anything new to add and simply supports what has been brought up, so there's not much commentary to be made about it unless someone has something more to add or to comment on beyond what was already said. While when it comes to "disagree" the reasons for that disagreement aren't necessarily clear simply from voicing disagreement. Now, it doesn't mean that it's completely one way or the other or that it's always that way, but it seems that it's like that more often than not.

I think ultimately in a lot of instances too much is being attributed to something like a "like" and often enough also too much might be read into it as well given that in many cases it all can mean much less.

 

[4509968]

People actually use FB messenger? The only time I use it is if I or a friend want to “share” something from my/their feed. it’s the easiest way to do so. But for generic “chat?” No way.

Seems like you actually use it.

Excellent response. Why would someone use 'actually' in this manner? Can someone 'non-actually' use Messenger?

 

[rudychidiac]

Ummm isn't Whatsapp a Facebook company....

Yeah, but I'm not avoiding Facebook messenger cause it's a facebook app...
[doublepost=1488873734][/doublepost]

Do realize FB owns WA right? As much as everyone loves that app, it's a crap show. Messenger isn't bad at all but it's FB!

No no and NO!

FB is a blight on this world and I will be happy the day it dies.

Trust me I do, but I'm not avoiding Facebook messenger cause it's a facebook app.

 

[zohaali146]

Bring it on, I love all these new reaction features facebook is testing

 

[b0fh666]

long overdue. thanks mr. Trump!

 

[Manatlt]

I prefer Messenger to WA. WA has gone worse over the past couple of months anyway.