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

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: Facebook Reactions

#91

Post by MichaelGG »

Shank wrote: post #66
kzhahou wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Slack has innovated literally every advancement in chat for the last 20 years.

That's not the right use of literally, and at best, is a good use of hyperbole. 20 years is a long time. 20 years ago, SMS wasn't a thing, and IRC and internet chatrooms were more popular. As time goes on, you have things like MSN, Yahoo! Messenger, etc. Emoji were invented after 20 years ago.

SMS was a thing 20 years ago. Wiki says first SMS message was sent in 1992, and development went far back (beyond IRC).

Re: Facebook Reactions

#92

Post by MichaelGG »

RyanZAG wrote: post #45

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?

Angry's for when someone posts something bad, like "Boss fired me for not sleeping with him".

If you use Angry for dislike, you're inviting mockery. "Oh, this got you angry? haha loser".

Re: Facebook Reactions

#93

Post by austenallred »

camillomiller wrote: post #2

People wanted a dislike button, got a series of redundant emoticons with very little space for actual disagreement. Which is actually good, because it won't transform Facebook into a mess of flames and negativity. Wait, maybe it's already too late for that...

Facebook doesn't want to encourage contention and negative emotions? Seems logical to me.

You remember how you feel when you use a product. When I comment on HN I feel like I'm standing before a military tribunal that is trying to pick apart everything I say and find a way to disagree with it. When I use Facebook I feel nothing but love and appreciation from the people I know and care about.

You may think that's lame or that you're above that, but I deal with enough shit in the rest of my life that I don't mind having a cushy place online to communicate with the people who care about me. And I'll even put up with Buzzfeed and email-forward-worthy garbage to do so.

On a macro scale I think that's something the world needs badly. I think most people could do with a little more love and positivity in their lives.

Re: Facebook Reactions

#95

Post by Shish2k »

dang wrote: post #86
Shish2k wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean HN the community rather than HN the website (As in, every time I've seen a meta-discussion about the HN voting system, something along those lines has been mentioned; though I guess that's more "culture" than "policy")

That view isn't HN's culture. Yes it always gets mentioned, but so does the opposite view. The community is divided. To the extent that HN itself has a policy it was set years ago by pg saying that downvoting for disagreement is ok.

> pg saying that downvoting for disagreement is ok.

I'm surprised I've not heard that before; but either way, I guess I stand thoroughly corrected, and will know better in future. Thank you for replying to explain my error and not just downvoting :)

Re: Facebook Reactions

#97

Post by hoopd »

Forlien wrote: post #81
hoopd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's a middlebrow dismissal, it's well-timed sarcasm which points to an important issue: Facebook deciding which emotions and expressions are first class citizens and which aren't is troubling.

Are there any chats that don't do this? How would you have implemented it?

"Everybody else is doing it" isn't doing it for me right now. Facebook has ~1.4 billion monthly active users and, somehow, no real competitors at the moment.

Facebook's COO, Sheryl Sandberg, has tried in the past to change how society functions by limiting vocabulary[0].

Facebook's product is their userbase, they make money by monetizing their userbase.

Ideally there would be enough competing chat/message services that you could always switch when you're unhappy. That's not the case here. Facebook has an enormous amount of power over how the world communicates and I think the intentional and unintentional effects of any bias they introduce should be discussed.

[0]-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Bossy

Re: Facebook Reactions

#98

Post by Daishiman »

gkoberger wrote: post #59

Why all the negativity here? You can still like things, comment with text, or just not use Facebook. Nobody will ever be forced to use these emoticons, and nobody at Facebook is saying you can only express these 6 emotions while using Facebook. I also don't get why everyone feels FB owes them a dislike button. It seems like that would be a bad feature. Personally, I think it's a good change. It won't change Facebook…

It's easy to hate on FB when the impact is minimal for each user and not really felt too consciously.

On the aggregate, however, I see it as a horrendously difficult feature to design adequately.

Re: Facebook Reactions

#99

Post by plaguuuuuu »

austenallred wrote: post #93
camillomiller wrote: post #2

People wanted a dislike button, got a series of redundant emoticons with very little space for actual disagreement. Which is actually good, because it won't transform Facebook into a mess of flames and negativity. Wait, maybe it's already too late for that...

Facebook doesn't want to encourage contention and negative emotions? Seems logical to me. You remember how you feel when you use a product. When I comment on HN I feel like I'm standing before a military tribunal that is trying to pick apart everything I say and find a way to disagree with it. When I use Facebook I feel nothing but love and appreciation from the people I know and care about. You may think that's lame…

>trying to pick apart everything I say and find a way to disagree with it.

We're totally not.

Re: Facebook Reactions

#100

Post by Mz »

plaguuuuuu wrote: post #99
austenallred wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook doesn't want to encourage contention and negative emotions? Seems logical to me. You remember how you feel when you use a product. When I comment on HN I feel like I'm standing before a military tribunal that is trying to pick apart everything I say and find a way to disagree with it. When I use Facebook I feel nothing but love and appreciation from the people I know and care about. You may think that's lame…

>trying to pick apart everything I say and find a way to disagree with it. We're totally not.

Ironically, you are so proving his point for him.
Post reply on HN