| For me it was this: > Normal purposeful speech makes different opinions closer, while speech under the feedback of the like button makes similar opinions even closer and different opinions further apart. But there is another aspect to the complexities here. Years ago, I started thinking of the LIKE/UPVOTE button as an "increase visibility" button. I don't upvote just because I like it (humor perhaps being an exception). Often, I'm not upvoting just the comments I like: I'm upvoting the whole containing _thread_, including the conflicting views if they seem to have been made in good faith. Because when good quality discourse takes place, I want the whole instance to be seen. In these cases, the intended audience of my upvotes is most immediately the algorithm (in a way), rather than human viewers. Sometimes I've found myself wishing my upvotes could be made invisible to humans since I know many of them will interpret my upvote differently than intended. There is no nuance. It gets me wondering how feedback mechanisms might be diversified to add nuance back into these systems (while still moderating complexity). Emoticons (as on Slack) do add nuance, but every emoticon pack I've seen lacks nuance most in neutral and critical responses. Of course, no technology we have now can compare with verbal discourse for nuance. But you and I are more likely to be able to influence feedback features on social media than to succeed in eliminating them. |
I think Mastodon tries to make that distinction with like vs boost. Boost seems to be about making a post more visible ("hey look at this!") and like is more about "thanks for posting". At least on the server I use.