[csydas]

I think you're somewhat understating the effect of the voting/like feedback. Even on HN which is fairly neutral to the whole social aspect of a message board, it's very clear that people take their karma seriously, even with rules specifically forbidding the meta-comments on down votes/up votes. The praise system works, it's addictive, and the biggest and largest source of the feedback is already set up, available, and provides exactly what people need. They know how to get what they want from it.

To me, it doesn't seem that people are using Facebook for anything but the feedback loop; for every business, self employed person, or personality using Facebook to connect to fans, there are dozens of people just looking to get in on the feed to get a taste of that feedback. Look at announcement posts from any entity with a large following; the comments on it will get into the tens of thousands in an hour or two. The comments aren't discussing it, it's people seeing a vein open up for the feedback, and trying to tap it to get some likes or feedback. Reddit seems to have the same issue with the top rated posts on more populated subreddits being nothing but dumb puns that people rush out to be first with; scroll down far enough, and you'll see the exact same pun repeated by others who were too slow to post and missed their chance.

Facebook isn't a communication platform really, it's a steady drip of endorphins as you can repeatedly live out your 15 minutes of fame over and over again, all while advertisers throw ads at you. Messenger is just a means to keep you in the platform.

The point of my banal rant is that the idea of alternative networks has been bandied around since everyone's mom and dad got a facebook account, but every time it's addressed, it's always about feature parity and improvements instead of acknowledging that Facebook currently is best situated to feed that need for acknowledgement. Trying to fight on features, on policy, and so on is pointless because that's not why people are using Facebook. We saw how Twitter and Instagram started to steal Facebook users because of a more efficient means of providing the same feedback for users. Wider audience, less effort, and Facebook took notice, copying features directly from both platforms.

It won't be just incorporating it, it will be ensuring that it's a better, faster, more efficient system for giving that gratification.

[Buttons840]

I haven't used Facebook but I've seen the "Like" buttons all over the place? Is there no mechanism for negative feedback? If I post something ignorant and offensive is the only possible outcome positive feedback from Likes?

[majewsky]

Since last year, there are multiple "reactions" to choose from, "like" being one of them: https://www.wired.com/2016/02/facebook-reactions-totally-red...

But there is still no "dislike". The closest thing would be "sad" or "angry". And of course, it still has the same problem as "like": When someone presses "like" on coverage of the terrorist attack, does that mean that they liked the terrorist attack, or the particular way it was covered by the media?

[niftich]

The real purpose of multiple reactions is to help train their sentiment analysis models with human input. Amidst some noise like people who always click a particular one like 'love', or the posts that hijack the reactions as a multi-option poll (click 'like' for A, 'love' for B, 'haha' for C), a good amount of people pick an appropriately genuine reaction in response.

This helps their automated sentiment analysis systems to classify content, and also helps surface a particular balance of content to you that Facebook deems appropriate (e.g. not posts that are likely to make you sad or angry at the top of the fold).

The reason negative reactions are absent is because they don't want to pit people against each other. Everyone can have their own corner of the sandbox, and despite the common derision of today's 'filter bubble', I don't think when they plan on serving advertisements to billions of very different people with pre-existing allegiances, opinions, and beliefs, they could realistically afford to do otherwise.

[bigbugbag]

I would not be surprised if this was part of a follow-up to the infamous mood experiment where they manipulated facebook's useds moods through timeline tinkering.

[bigbugbag]

These reactions are definitely not what you think they are.

It's more about facebook collecting insight on your state of mind that they could not guess or find out otherwise than providing alternative to the like button.

[bigbugbag]

There's no dislike button or negative equivalent to the like button. But you can provide negative feedback by reporting the post to have it censored or the author banned.

[tluyben2]

Did that ever work for you? I have often reported spam (fake profiles of nice girls who then message you to do something they make money with or comments littered with posts by fake profiles for you to click links or buy products), very obvious spam or fake profile (farms) and only got back from Facebook 'we see no violation, just ignore this user'. Anyone had more luck? I find it weird as it is so obvious.

[lenkite]

The feedback loop is indeed a problem. The youtube wise-cracks begging for upvotes are even more horrendous than the reddit ones. They get repeated ad nauseam everywhere and yet people continue to up-vote them. The insightful ones are generally buried and lost. I wish social networks prevented posting of duplicate up-bait.