Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Reactions

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: Facebook Reactions

#41

Post by shitloadofbooks »

Swizec wrote: post #31
amyjess wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the purpose of Reactions isn't to "provide a dislike button" like a lot of people wanted. The purpose of reactions is to provide an alternative for people who don't want to click "Like" on stories of tragedy (e.g. someone's loved one dying, someone announcing they have cancer, or even something non-personal like a news article about a mass shooting) because it sounds inappropriate, like "ha ha, I'm enjoying you…

> "ha ha, I'm enjoying your tragedy!" That's not the semantics of the Like button however. The Like button's semantics, as used by most people, are "I have read your post, don't have anything meaningful to add, and agree with you and/or express my post-appropriate social action but do not feel affected enough or close enough to you on the social graph to leave a comment." The meaning of a Like is extremely contextual…

But the word "like" has connotations and it looks _awful_ to have a post with someone pouring their heart out about a tragedy and then have "Janine and 99 others like this" directly below it.

Re: Facebook Reactions

#42

Post by Cthulhu_ »

msoad wrote: post #7

I've seen this in a developer phone. The downside is "number of likes" will be lower because those other emotions are not counted as "likes" and there is no indicator of how many total reactions you got. Of course you can add it up but it's not calculated by default.

That's probably just a matter of time before they add the different emoticons to their algorithms.

Re: Facebook Reactions

#44

Post by slashcom »

degenerate wrote: post #14
minimaxir wrote: post #10

Anyone remember YouTube Reactions? Died because no one used them. Hell, even BuzzFeed , the pioneer of reaction culture, implemented Reactions but are slowly depreciating them.

The problem is that you can't aggregate them. 1 Like and 4 dislikes = "20% like this". What are you going to do with a bunch of faces to show consensus? And which of those faces am I supposed to use to say this post is filled with misinformation and you shouldn't be spreading it ... Angry? Sad?

My guess as to what FB will do: treat them all as a "like" with respect to engagement statistics (i.e. do we show this post to more people?)

And simultaneously, use all the emotions to train a ridiculously good sentiment analysis system.

Re: Facebook Reactions

#45

Post by RyanZAG »

They added 'angry' ? That looks very much the same as 'dislike' to me. He doesn't bring it up in his message either so it was probably a late addition.

I have a feeling 'angry' will be used whenever you don't like what someone is saying: it's the same thing?

Re: Facebook Reactions

#46

Post by dang »

Shish2k wrote: post #8

For disagreement, write a comment explaining /why/ you disagree. (It's similar to HN's policy* of "prefer discussion to downvotes") * EDIT: I mean culture; as in I've seen it mentioned a lot by users of the site, though it's not in the rules

> It's similar to HN's policy of "prefer discussion to downvotes"

HN has never had any such policy.

Edit: We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10356268 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Facebook Reactions

#47

Post by Osmium »

Canada wrote: post #16

Wow I'm so excited that I can now express myself with a range of Facebook approved emotions!

Eventually we'll be back to being able to communicate the full breadth of human emotions! And then we'll need someone to invent another 'like' button, so we can sufficiently simplify our social workloads again...

There seems to be a cyclicality to it. We know too many people (see Dunbar's number [0]), we're fed too much information, we're overwhelmed. So invent Twitter, to reduce the amount of information coming in, invent Facebook, make it easier to maintain social connections with ever-more people. And then realise there are limitations to this, so Twitter starts a blogging service, and Facebook adds 'reactions', and now we're back where we started, no?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Re: Facebook Reactions

#49

Post by [deleted] »

arasmussen wrote: post #36
orbifold wrote: post #32

I wonder if one of the new options simply gets adopted as "dislike" by convention, maybe Yay would be a good candidate.

Why would Yay get adopted as "dislike"? Something like angry or sad would make way more sense. It'd be incredibly hard to create this culture in 1.4B people when the UI indicates otherwise. Perhaps among younger audiences? I'm still very skeptical.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Reactions

#50

Post by raymondgh »

I liked the insightful/interesting/informative/funny on slashdot, maybe this will work out like that. Anyway, why not test a new feature? I see a lot of cynical comments here. And since when does Zuckerberg announce new features from his fb account? That's pretty cool.
Post reply on HN