Huh? i use the laugh emoji when i find something funny.
Well, I see how it could be abused to harass someone by spamming them with "laugh" - or any other emoji - I think its down to the people who seriously want it removed to do the research and show how big a problem that is.
If I were going to start axing reactions, I wouldn't start with "laugh".
"like" has a pretty clear meaning and potentially avoids lots near-identical posts.
"laugh" is promarily a reaction to a joke or absurd situation. It
could be abused, but has a clear intended meaning.
"wow", "sad" are somewhat ambiguous. Are they a reaction to the post, or the subject at hand? Like "laugh" they make sense in context, but I've seen them used in ways that made it unclear
"angry" really doesn't need to be there. It's completely unclear whether the reactee (?) is angry at the poster, or what they were saying. If I criticise something that Apple have done, is an "angry" reaction aimed atApple or angry at me for criticising Apple? If someone is angry about consumer electronics, they shoud get away from the screen, touch grass, have a cup of tea, punch the wall, whatever, and tnen maybe come back and post a reasoned argument as to what made them angry.
"disagree" - likewise - it signifies nothing to me without an argument to back it up. Either take time to contribute to the debate, or "like" someone else who has already replied.
As I said, if this were really keeping me awake at night I'd go and compile a portfolio of examples to make the case. I'm just not clear
why we need any reactions beyond "like" and "laugh" (and I wouldn't miss those if they were thrown out with the bathwater) - they're neither necessary or sufficient for a good conversation. Personally, I just ignore anything that's not a like, laugh or actual response (and I try not to get too carried away with the laughs and likes). If I want a (completely unreliable) poll on a subject, there's a button for that.
