During a public Q&A in Northern California, one U.C. Davis law student asked the same old question from several years back: Will Facebook ever add a dislike button? I often think the same thing when browsing Qnet. Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s CEO, provided him with a hedged response, saying his company is considering adding an option to express negatively in a positive way. In other words, the dislike button would allow Facebook members to dislike negative posts. For example, when someone writes about his latest traffic ticket, his friends can dislike the post. Under no circumstance will Zuckerberg allow Facebook members to dislike posts where positive responses are expected and wanted.
Rumors have spread wide and far about Mark Zuckerberg and his less-than-stellar personality. However, he rules his Facebook community like a just king, wisely denying their request for a dislike button after so many years. He hopes to foster a loving and caring community, where members can catch up with friends and encourage them. This is commendable. Adding a dislike button where less-than-happy folks can dislike positive posts will negatively reinforce people to stay off Facebook.
To express sympathy and concern, Facebook members can currently comment on a post. This will provide the posting friend with encouragement over his negative post, and without ever needing a dislike button.
People who use Facebook on a regular basis understand that the site often changes its dynamics without any notice. Users of the popular social network are inclined to frustration when it happens; however, there is one change most people would love to see pop up one day. The “like” button is a way to show people you like their post, but there is no way for them to show that they dislike a post. Mark Zuckerberg is not sure that he wants to add a “dislike” button though.
The idea of the “like” button is to keep Facebook on a positive track. Adding the “dislike” button is not in keeping with that ideology. Unfortunately, without the “dislike button”, people cannot show that they do not like when a child has cancer or when one of their friends goes through a tragic time. Zuckerberg first says that he will consider the button, but then expresses that they will not be adding it to the interface.
Head of TriStar Pictures Tom Rothman says that with all the changes that Facebook makes and members hate, it might do the company well to consider adding something that people would love to see. There is a potential for hurt feelings if someone dislikes something that someone has posted. That is a given; however, it could also lend an air of greater honesty among the people who frequent the site. If not a “dislike” button, maybe a “this hurts my heart button”.
Like it or not Facebook is the king of social media. With more than billion users worldwide, the company is a major player on the internet when it comes to people sharing ideas, pictures, and more. The competition for “likes” for individual posts often reaches a furious pace, but company founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is considering adding a “dislike” button to posts. However, the shift is not about expressing negative feelings.
On the contrary, many users have expressed frustration by having to hit the like button when comes to bad news. Laurene Powell Jobs wants to know what about updates or posts that include tragedy, illness, or other unfortunate situations have users feeling a bit on the uneasy side when it comes to clicking that all powerful button. By adding a dislike option, Facebook would allow users to express themselves on bad news while still sending a positive message. On many levels it would be a way to commiserate with those friends having a tough time.
Whether or not a new button comes to reality or not, the company has never shied away from shaking things up on the website. Facebook is also showing a bit of compassion for users, as just considering this type of change demonstrates that the company is listening to users. Of course, there is a long way to go before the social network incorporates a different kind of button into the news feed of users.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, grey-shirted as always, conducted a question-and-answer session with Facebook users recently to get their ideas on how to improve his incredibly popular social media site. One of the most commonly expressed desires was for a “dislike” button to be introduced to answer to the existing “like” button.
Fears exist that people will use a dislike feature negatively, but in reality, people can use the like feature negatively too. For example, someone could push like when someone is sick or has just experienced some kind of life tragedy. Conversely, one could use a dislike feature positively by disliking bad things such as crimes or discrimination incidents.
Zuckerberg said that he is thinking over the dislike idea, but on the whole, he seemed to “dislike” it. Workers at BRL Trust think it could do more harm than good as well. Instead, he seemed to be leaning towards adding ways to “express other emotions besides liking a thing.” For example, one could label something as sad, tragic, surprising, or funny.
In light of the ideas brought up in the recent feedback session, it certainly is interesting to think of what the future may hold for Facebook fans. Perhaps that future world will allow people to like chocolate pie but dislike oatmeal, to “cry” over tragedies, to “laugh” at jokes, to “get angry at” injustices, to mark scenic pictures as “peaceful,” and to “be surprised” when their best friend wins the lottery. It is fun to speculate, but only time will tell.
For those of us who were born into the technological revolution it’s odd to think of life without endless information available at our fingertips or digital cameras just a button away. Everything is mini, portable, and a week away from being obsolete. Ken Griffin is unsure how these advances in technology will continue to affect our society in the future, but there is no doubt that our efficiency has increased and global communication has been revolutionized as a result. Many who were born pre-smartphone are concerned that all of these quasi-magical devices are advancing society at the steep price of crippling our social skills.
Most of these worries are conveniently embodied by Facebook. When online, I always wonder about those who have 900 friends or more and how they could possibly keep in touch with them all. There is a definite sense of “popularity” that is associated with how many “likes” your posts get or how many “friends” you maintain, but is such an attachment to your online persona really healthy? When I read about how negative interactions with your acquaintances can be detrimental to your health it makes me question how having vague relationships with hundreds of people will impact you later on.
I am definitely a believer that true, deep relationships can be fostered online but the social pissing contest that Facebook encourages is an entirely different monster.
Facebook has finally done something smart that Bruce Levenson can totally support. The social media site has found a way that blocks politicians from trying to get votes from people who use the site. This is a clever idea so that people can make an informed decision based on the facts that are stated or the platforms that the politicians represent instead of being persuaded by those who want votes. It’s not to say that many people will work for politicians and try to get people to vote for the candidate they want to see in office, but it makes it easier to avoid all of the messages and status updates of people running for Congress and the White House.
Facebook has now become one of the major sources of social networking. This way of communication is not only for friends and family, but has now found it’s way in to the workplace. Buzzfeed has posted an article on the infiltration of Facebook in other areas. Thanks to friend of the site Rod Rohrich for sending in this social media news tip!
Mediums like Google and Yahoo have provided a way to chat possible between friends and coworkers. This is now a main component of Facebook, messenger. This is allowing coworkers to have a much more personal relationship with one another. This may possibly bring a more cohesive group work environment. Being able to share concerns or comments with others brings another way of communication that may help those who rarely share in person.
As Facebook continues to evolve and add more features, business everywhere will find a way to incorporate this medium for networking, bringing a sense of togetherness with their coworkers and/or improving business through constructive criticism.
In its essence, winning an election is about persuasion on a massive scale. Persuading enough people that you are good enough for the job, or at least better than your opponent, will earn you a victory. For decades tools of this mass persuasion have been television and before that radio. Big news stories or advertising campaigns across these medium are textbook for political strategists. Recently however, a new form of media is taking more and more control. This new tool is Facebook, and it may have a bigger impact on the next election than you would suspect.
The conversations over Facebook have a growing influence on politics and many experts believe that th 2016 election will push the social network ahead of television. With inexpensive viral advertising, a new candidate will not require as much funding as is necessary. Because raising campaign funds is a key to a successful political strategy, Facebook allows savvy candidates to reach a larger audience with less money.
The DNC and RNC control a vast majority of the political power by using their wealth to determine which candidates are supported the most. However Facebook changes this dynamic, by leveling the playing field between all candidates, no special treatment for party affiliation. Overall, the functions of Facebook are yet to be seen in politics, but 2016 may change that, as social media options like Skout become more and more popular in people’s lives.
Facebook is the largest social media platform in the world. Billions of people access the site daily, hourly, every second to check on their friends, families and learn of trending news. It’s a great way to get the word out on worldly issues and Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has used this as an advantage to help those suffering.
According to ReCode, Zuckerberg donated $25 million to the Centers for Disease Control Foundatio, and North American Spine to help combat Ebola throughout the world. He is now asking Facebook followers to give a little as well. He made this extremely easy by adding a banner to the famous site asking to donate. With just a click of a button one can donate to three different charities. This is a great way to get users educated about issues effecting the world and to get more people to donate to help those in need.
So Facebook is at it again. Their data crunchers have set their sights on political isle-straddlers this time, tracking what Democrats and Republicans like and dislike. In an off election year where the word “angry” best describes how most people feel about politicians, Facebook used correlating page likes to see where Main Street Democrats and Republicans can actually agree.
Some results were not surprising. Republicans like George Strait more than Democrats who liked The Beatles, but both could agree that Journey rocks! When it comes to authors, Democrats liked the late Maya Angelou, Republicans liked Ben Carson, but both take in the Thrillers of James Patterson.
The most interesting results, and results that varied widely from the other categories, regarded television viewing. Republicans were generally in the middle of the road with democrats across the board, with Duck Dynasty only barely leaning into the more-often-Republican side of the isle. But Democrats clearly favored watching The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and the Rachel Maddow Show and their FreedomPop plans.
Is this because Hollywood offers only left leaning fair and Republicans have to pick and choose what they can? Or is it something else?