Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UT-Dallas Professor Adds 'Enemies' Feature To Facebook

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the antisocial-networking dept.

Facebook 112

An anonymous reader writes "Many people have called for a 'dislike' button on Facebook, but the service has not allowed it. A professor's app lets users add 'enemies,' in what he says is critique of the service's advertiser-friendly niceness. Will Zuckerberg let the app stand or ban it?"

cancel ×

112 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Prada Outlet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39465995)

The summer is coming,you need a nice sunglass to protact from the sun,Our Prada Outlet [prada-onlinesale.net] store offer you cheap and beautiful sunglasses,ther are all take from prada factory with no tax and extra price.We also have the new Prada handbangs in 2012,they are all cheap and nice,our Prada Outlet Online [prada-onlinesale.net] shop offer all products free shipping and we deliver them worldwide,a American friend buy 2 handbags from our Prada Outlet Store [prada-onlinesale.net] ,and he says ther are authentic,Our Prada Outlet [prada-onlinesale.net] shop offer good after service for erery customers.In here you can enjoy our service like a god.

BAN! (4, Insightful)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466015)

Amything that circumvents FB choices will be banned. Or integrated.
So, in the end, that app will die for sure.

I would rather see this banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466067)

Evidently some poor souls do not take enough abuse on facebook.... here's a way to sanction it.

Re:I would rather see this banned (1)

blade8086 (183911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471969)

oh please

WAAH INTERNET BULLIES MADE MEH KILL MESELF

all of the capitals in this post are intentional so mr slashdot filter can please go away thank you.

Enemies? (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466467)

Now I'm almost tempted to get onto Facebook. Except I'd never use a real name/address/email/etc., so maybe I'm still not tempted at all.
But let's see who tries to add 800 million or so to their list of enemies (minus a few who might even be actual friends)...

Bully! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39467909)

With all the hoopla about online bullying this app won't last long. It ruins my day when one of my Slashdot posts gets modded down.

Life is too short to waste time on a Dislike button anyway,

Re:BAN! (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39469109)

Facebook bans Amy? :(

They're worried. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466019)

They're worried.

I'm worried.

Already been done long time ago by enemybook.org (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466021)

http://www.enemybook.org/
very old app....

Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466025)

With the binary friend / no friend distinction, I could adequately express myself through my absence from Facebook. Not a friend of BurgerKing, not a friend of Starbucks, etc. Now I'll have to get a Facebook account to put everybody on my enemies list? Can I just enemize anyone or do I have to pretend to be their friend first?

Re:Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471939)

It shows that you've never used Facebook. You don't "friend" pages, you like them.

Prior Art (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466027)

He can't patent the idea, President Nixon came up with it first. [enemieslist.info]

A clear violation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466029)

A clear violation of the "Hooray for everything" clause.

Re:A clear violation... (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466267)

Was just thinking that. Disliking something doesn't fit into the doubleplusgood world where everyone is liked and everyone's a winner. See, mom, everyone likes what I do, I got $somerandomnumber people liking what I do!

Being able to dislike something would actually make people see just how many people really not only don't care about them but care enough about them to wish they would just die and leave a very shallow grave.

Re:A clear violation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466459)

Dear Zuckerberg:

I will get a Facebook account when you allow me to dislike things.
I would find it enormously fun to let people know what I think with the click of a button.

Thx

Re:A clear violation... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39468289)

For instance, jews like Zuckerberg.

Re:A clear violation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39469525)

It seems as though anyone who would want to dislike something, need to cull their so-called "friends list" a bit.

Re:A clear violation... (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471003)

Most of the posts I see on my Facebook news feed are news articles and music videos shared by friends, not their own personal experiences and doings.

So, yeah, I'd love to be able to "dislike" news articles that I find upsetting but not worth writing an actual reply to. I'd like to easily "dislike" a track that churns my stomach (Google/YouTube could implement that too, but in their case it would provide data for populating a "suggestion" list that I might actually want to check out.)

Plus if the likes and dislikes are added up like they are at other sites I visit, you can get a real quick feel for what other people think about comments people have made. You know someone has made a good discussion point when you see things like +140/-130 and a total of ten -- that's a post that pushed buttons!

Re:A clear violation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471793)

What if their grandma dies? Can you dislike that? :(

Re:A clear violation... (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467269)

That's not as far-fetched as you think. We're raising the current generation of younglings with the impression that they get a gold star and excessive praise no matter what they do. There can be nothing negative ever.

This is why half the recent college grads I've been interviewing lately have unreasonable expectations. They've been raised in a fantasy land that doesn't exist in the real world.

Re:A clear violation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39468147)

Just like when everyone gets a trophy at the little league games. People need to learn that there is one winner and chances are, they're not it.

Re:A clear violation... (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471213)

This is why half the recent college grads I've been interviewing lately have unreasonable expectations. They've been raised in a fantasy land that doesn't exist in the real world.

Well, that and the fact that with the economy being the way it's been since they entered college, "reasonable expectations" are basically ONE bowl of gruel for a hard day's work.

Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (3, Interesting)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466039)

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/the-hollow-emptiness-in-social-media-numbers-most-accounts-are-fake-or-empty/2175 [zdnet.com]

itâ(TM)s easy to buy âoefriendsâ and âoefollowers,â by the thousands, and âoelikesâ by the tens of thousands, for a low fee. This can jumpstart a marketing campaign if it makes it onto a top trending list. Buying such services will also help contractors meet performance goals set by clients and trigger payments. It can be a lucrative arbitrage.

The result however, is considerable inflation in the numbers of users of all the major social networks and platforms.

The operators of the networks: Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc, must know who is real and who isnâ(TM)t. They have usage data that shows telltale signs of a fake account. They also know how much information a user has disclosed, and how many user profiles are empty.

Whatâ(TM)s not known is how they count the many types of users, how rigorous is their analysis? There is no transparency on the single most important pool of information for their commercial customers.

So really, who cares? Facebook users are narcissists, insecure, asocial, or bogus "marketing accounts" [theglobeandmail.com] .

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (4, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466079)

In reality most of those accounts are ignored for the most part. Circles of family and friends tend to cull dormat deadwood from active use. I don't friend random strangers, but family and close friends.

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (3, Interesting)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466119)

You're a rarity. Most people don't bother culling accounts - their innate insecurity, which led them to friend total strangers in the first place to bolster their sense of self-worth, prevents that.

This sort of behaviour leads to some funny results. One of my friends, as part of a study, was asked to contact - by phone - a bunch of people picked at random from a person's friends list for a marketing project. These were all people the person had said they knew because "I don't just friend anybody..." Not one of them knew the guy.

Facebook == lame.

tomhudson = Barbara not barbie (plus others)? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39469067)

Coming from the multiple account using troll and stalker tomhudson = Barbara, not barbie (and webmistressrachel as well as other registered user id's you use around here)? That's ironic, droll, and quite stupid of you, of all people, to complain about. You're the worst offender of forums misuse by trolling and stalking others by anonymous replies as well I have ever seen here or elsewhere online. Do you like Shakespear? I hope so, because this fits you to a tee: "And thus I clothe my naked villany With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ, And seem a saint, when most I play the devil." What a joke, hypocrite, and full of it scumbag you are.

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (1)

Tooke (1961582) | more than 2 years ago | (#39469197)

You're a rarity. Most people don't bother culling accounts - their innate insecurity, which led them to friend total strangers in the first place to bolster their sense of self-worth, prevents that.

Ok, so you state that a lot of Facebook users are insecure.

This sort of behaviour leads to some funny results. One of my friends, as part of a study, was asked to contact - by phone - a bunch of people picked at random from a person's friends list for a marketing project. These were all people the person had said they knew because "I don't just friend anybody..." Not one of them knew the guy.

Alright, so at least one guy has friended a bunch of people on Facebook that he doesn't know.

Facebook == lame.

This is the part I don't get. Having insecure users doesn't imply that Facebook is lame.

(Also, what's with the whole "foo == bar" construct anyway? It doesn't make sense to me, shouldn't it be something more like "foo.bar == true"?)

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470031)

foo.bar == true is unnecessary code. if foo.bar evaluates to true, there is no reason to compare it to true.

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470697)

You sir, win the gold star for anecdotal evidence using the phrase "part of a study" - which lends credence without adding any actual support.

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470743)

You sir,

Need more coffee?

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471303)

Facebook seems useful to those who are less technically aware. Rather than getting to know a range of applications email, forums, instant messaging or using a range of web sites and completely unaware of the privacy and exploitation issues, just simply use Facebook to communicate with family and friends. They will also push no using family and friends to join.

It's the simple use of a communications medium for the technologically simple, this combined with a mobile phone is pretty much all they understand and all they need. 'It is the way of things', the technologically limited will only use technology that is easily and simply accessible (they will then spend hours on end tweaking and pressing buttons et al thinking how bright they are, rather than how they are being manipulated by sick and perverted doctorates in psychology).

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466285)

Try it. Create a fake account, open up some random stranger's page and friend them.

I'd surprised if you get fewer than 80% accepts.

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466719)

Higher if they're hot chicks, since those are all fake accounts too.

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471901)

This may be because people are worried about being rude and rejecting someone they really do know but have forgotten.

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (1)

Jahf (21968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467171)

So you're saying, with the exception of fake accounts and zynga, Facebook = /.?

tomhudson = Barbara not barbie (plus others)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39467235)

Coming from the multiple account using troll and stalker tomhudson = Barbara, not barbie (and webmistressrachel as well as other registered user id's you use around here)? That's ironic, droll, and quite stupid of you, of all people, to complain about. You're the worst offender of forums misuse by trolling and stalking others by anonymous replies as well I have ever seen here or elsewhere online. Do you like Shakespear? I hope so, because this fits you to a tee: "And thus I clothe my naked villany With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ, And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (2)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467729)

So really, who cares? Facebook users are narcissists, insecure, asocial, or bogus "marketing accounts" [theglobeandmail.com].

Some/majority != All.

Every single person on my friends list is a real life friend or acquaintance. Admittedly some of them are old college friends who I pretty much lost touch with, but occasionally check up so see where they've gone in life, but most of them are people I still keep in touch with (IRL when possible), and at some point I've had a real life beer with every single one of them (all, big whopping, 60 of them). Obviously, then, I'm asocial, insecure, a narcissistic, or a bogus marketing account.

The same is true with my girlfriend (incidentally we're friends on Facebook, and share a house in life), and her mother, and my father's wife, and a vast majority of my friends. Yes, some of them are social media whores, I've had a friend go and try to friend all of my other friends a couple times, even though she never met a single one of them, and shares nothing in common with them (she's from my wilder youth, and most of them are from college), her "friend" total sits at 1500+. There is obviously something wrong there, in my 32 years on this earth I doubt I've even met 1500 people I could tolerate, much less consider "friends". A couple of my friends are spammy, and constantly need attention (which would be true without Facebook), and some of them are spammy because they use Facebook as a tool (one is one of the heads of our local Occupy movement, one is very involved in Occupy LA, and one is a Rave/scene promoter). Most of them are like me, and post once a month or so, and generally use it as a way to keep up to date with geographically distant friends and acquaintances.

Yes, I'm guessing a majority of social connections are bogus, insecure, asocial, or narcissists, but probably the vast majority of users aren't.

In the end, as with most things, Facebook is a tool. You can use it however you want, and what you get out of it depends on what you want from it. Even if 99.9999% of users were undesirable whatnots, it wouldn't effect me, or my use of it, in the slightest.

The "i don't use facespace!" crowd is the obnoxiously snug "i don't watch tv" hipsters of yesteryear. Good for you, but why should I care?

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468081)

There are obviously exceptions to pretty much any rule where we're talking about human conduct, but that doesn't take away from the fact that facebook is a problem for many people, allowing them to replace real interaction with superficial "friends" (and then when that doesn't fix their self-esteem problems, go on quests for more and more pseudo-friends, the same as an alcoholic goes after more and more booze to "fix" their problems).

Facebook is not only an enabler, it's also become the instigator in many cases. If it were to disappear tomorrow, long-term, society would be better off.

Of course I'm only talking about real accounts - the millions of fake ones are just a normal market reaction to people trying to make a buck any way they can, manipulating the system for their benefit, same as the SEO scam artists.

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (3, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468661)

Facebook is not only an enabler, it's also become the instigator in many cases. If it were to disappear tomorrow, long-term, society would be better off.

If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, then something just like it would show up the next day. All social media (since newsgroups, at least) has been vocally dominated by people desperately seeking attention, and using it as a crutch for their own psychological problems. This pre-exists the internet, go to a typical trendy college bar. Go hang out with your obscenely outgoing co-worker... Go to your local shopping mall and listen to the screaming teenagers (which was the social media of my generation, ignoring IRC and BBSs for us nerds).

People said the same stuff your saying about AOL > Geocities/Angelfire > Livejournal > Myspace, and now Twitter. Yes, there are problems with them, but if mature people use them maturely, then these problems are mostly mitigated. The same can be said of things like alcohol, idiots will use them and degrade themselves, but some of us can enjoy a tasty glass of scotch after dinner and be fine. Do the idiots degrade the responsible ones? Only if the responsible ones can't ignore the idiots.

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39467791)

That's fitting. Perhaps the coming Facebook Wars reflect the meat world similarly, meaning the war will be based on narcissism, insecurity, asocial tendencies, or bogus "marketing."

Re:Who cares? Most social media accounts are fake. (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468593)

Isn't that the basis for pretty much all marketing?

FBDislike? (1)

rayvd (155635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466055)

There's a dislike plugin already.

Re:FBDislike? (4, Interesting)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466967)

There's a dislike plugin already.

It's called "disable account" - but it doesn't really work. They'll keep sending you status updates via email, and tell you when someone shares stuff with you, even though you've disabled the account. I disabled mine monthas ago, after hardly using it for several years after I finally signed up.

It's one way for them to keep their user numbers artificially inflated.

Dumped twitter years ago - boring!

Thinking of dumping google+ as well - I check it every few days, but really, it's not all that interesting compared to the real world. Especially now that spring is here! (I know, it's heresy to even speak of that big blue room with the bright light in the sky that can burn your skin if you stay there too long, and the living green carpet, and creatures that look almost as real as the digital people and birds and squirrels we see every day, ... but still ... :-)

Re:FBDislike? (1)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468347)

You speak blasphemy!

Re:FBDislike? (1)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 2 years ago | (#39471175)

I check it every few days, but really, it's not all that interesting compared to the real world.

Do you have invitations? How do I get one?

Re:FBDislike? (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39473141)

The easiest way is to get a dog. Walking them every morning and evening gives you exercise, and you'll be able to meet total strangers (sort of like all the people who "recommend" each other on linkedin). Plus they don't post embarrassing photos of you and they won't ignore you to check their facebook page.

Social choices (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466081)

It blows my mind to think of all the similar applications that have yet to be developed for social networking. "dislike all this guy's likes"; "like things that seem like this; join this coalition of things to like.

Non-social like, for specific ideas or products. An app that warns you if the product you're looking at was made by a disliked company. An app that suggests likes by association. An app that warns you not to buy a product if 60% of your social circle dislikes it. An app that auto-likes things Consumer Reports rated 4 stars or better. Partial dislike.

And like/dislike is only the bare beginning. Want. Want(urgent) Need. Looking for. Hate. Attempting to acquire.

Due to privacy concerns I don't facebook but this is obviously the next paradigm* in mass social interaction.

*Sorry to use that word but it's not a buzzword in this case: it fits.

Re:Social choices (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466161)

I guess I just don't understand how people can let their lives be manipulated by people or things that they dislike. Or by people that they like for that matter.

I select what products I want based primarily on my own judgment. If I know someone and respect their opinion, I may give some weight to it in my choices. But that respect doesn't always correspond one to one with friendship. Some of my friends are lacking in their knowledge in certain areas. Likewise, some people I don't like do display some common sense.

The whole 'freinds have got to stick together and stand up against common enemies' is exploited far too much politically as well as in marketing.

Re:Social choices (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466191)

You make some great points. Nevertheless offloading social decisions into the network is the way things are going. We just need better control over what we Like and Dislike.

Re:Social choices (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466793)

But that's a failure of the software, if it doesn't let you model those relationships. In theory, you could search for e.g. a new car, and decide which of your acquaintances opinion you trust in that regard, so that the software can only take those in account.

More: in certain areas, like music or films, it's possible to calculate "compatibility matches" based on previously added information. Some software already does this, but it's not integrated with Facebook, AFAIK.

Re:Social choices (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466955)

But that's a failure of the software, if it doesn't let you model those relationships.

I don't want 'the software' to be modeling those relationships for me. I'll do it myself. The whole relationship/marketing data mining business is aimed at identifying opinion leaders so that their opinions can be purchased by ad agencies. Some of these leaders are honest enough to reveal product placement deals that they are involved in. Some are regulated or prohibited from entering into such deals (securities and other financial products, for example). But the abuse of these sorts of things in viral marketing [wikipedia.org] campaigns is rampant.

Re:Social choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39467823)

The most valuable advertising vector is word of mouth. It also has the advantage of being largely free. I fail to see how social networking informing you that Johnny liked the new Italian restaurant influencing you to try it is a scary thing. A good bit of advertising is just getting you to know the product/service exists. Knowing that your peers liked that product can only help you make an informed decision. Granted some people like crappy stuff, but over time you learn to disregard their recommendations and instead pay attention to those with high standards. A few friends are quite the gourmands and so I'll value any restaurant advice they recommend - I'll still check the menu to make sure I recognize something I'd want to eat (or know to expect to try something very new) though. When you hire a builder/plumber/mechanic/etc. most of the time it is based on good references. If you actually know those references, you have a bit more trust in them. This also eases the lag between performance and word spreading. Many restaurants are not profitable in their first few months because they don't have enough regulars yet and not enough people are willing to change their habits to try it. This is part of why so many chains proliferate - they are known quantities to consumers and so can be profitable much more quickly than mom & pop ones. I've seen a few restaurants open recently that pushed Facebook, etc. to encourage diners to spread the word to their friends. Sure it is advertising, but if it is for a product I'm interested in, I'm happy to be informed of it.

Re:Social choices (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468655)

The most valuable advertising vector is word of mouth.

Correct.

It also has the advantage of being largely free.

Right.

I fail to see how social networking informing you that Johnny liked the new Italian restaurant influencing you to try it is a scary thing.

Because the people who run the social network will identify all the 'Johnnys' that others follow and slip him a few bucks to shill for some disgusting gut bomb fast order grill.

Re:Social choices (2)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466917)

The thing is that nobody actually behaves based on what happens on facebook. Nobody buys a product because a bunch of people "like" it. Heck, most people can't even remember any of the last 100 posts they read (try it - interrupt someone who's surfing facebook, and ask them to recall what they were reading. Their brain is in "zoned-out mode" - for the most part nothing they read really registers).

We're in a "social media bubble", one which will collapse when advertisers realize that they can get better returns by spending their "social media budget" on booze and returning the empties for a refund.

Re:Social choices (4, Interesting)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467449)

I guess I just don't understand how people can let their lives be manipulated by people or things that they dislike. Or by people that they like for that matter.

Well, here's a good example. Governer Rick Perry's "Strong" [youtube.com] video. It was homophobic and hateful in every way. 26,404 likes, 764,362 dislikes. If there were such a thing as god I'd say he has a healthy sense of irony [nymag.com] as well.

This one video was Perry's last stand, his last chance at being a contender. He decided to go all out and appeal to the Christian bigotry vote.

It didn't exactly work.

Re:Social choices (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470715)

If he had posted that video on Facebook, it would have changed your comment to read: "26,404 likes", which tells a very different story indeed. For either a politician or a corporation (or any entity really), FB let's you control the message. The only exception is if the traffic is too high for your team of censors to keep up: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-best-facebook-comments-from-the-kansas-abortio [buzzfeed.com] .

Re:Social choices (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467859)

I guess I just don't understand how people can let their lives be manipulated by people or things that they dislike. Or by people that they like for that matter.

It's not about things you dislike, it's about things people you trust dislike. If I'm buying a new widget, and I don't know much about widgets, I may find that FooCorp makes very cheap widgets that have all of the requisite check boxes on their feature lists. If a friend, who is a widgetphile, tells me that FooCorp has very poor build quality, then I'll probably reconsider.

Re:Social choices (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466171)

If such things get too effective it could have impacts elsewhere. Think news, for example: A poll gets going on some news site, and a few friends from the pro-X side go to vote... but in doing so, they identify the poll as something of interest to the pro-X community, and recormendation engines drive more pro-Xers there to vote, making it appear even more popular...

Online polls are essentially worthless already for that very reason, but now extend the situation to businesses (Ten orders one day, a million the next), social forums (Instant mobs forming of commenters all pressing the same side of an issue) and misinformation (A boycott could go on for years prepetuated by forgotten dislikes, long after the company ceased to do whatever got people disliking it in the first place).

Re:Social choices (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466711)

That mostly what VRM - Vendor Relationship Management - is about: giving people the software to manage their relationships with companies and other organizations. ProjectVRM [harvard.edu] talks a lot about those issues.

Dislike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466091)

Dislike

Re:Dislike (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466319)

At least here on /., you actually can. Well, at least occasionally, when you got modpoints. You're not forced to mod every crap up or, if you think it's prime grade bullcrap, can only leave it be. You can actually go and mod it down.

The net effect is that if I talk out of my ass constantly on FB, I will still think people agree with me and like me. Because from time to time, everyone, even the dimmest idiot in the world, is prone to saying something witty, useful or at least funny. Even if 99.9% of the time, whatever he rambles about would instantly be dismissed as idiot drivel.

What does that mean on FB? That you get the occasional "please die, dumbass" comment while, if just looking at your "likes", you'll see how there are still people who actually agree with you, giving you the general feel that what you say is valuable input. On here, if you're a complete idiot 99% of the time, you will be shown in no uncertain terms that you are.

That's basically why FB will never endorse such a dislike feature. Because they don't give half a shit about just how much of a dork you are as long as you're there, use it and hand them information. And, well, people don't tend to stay where they're constantly told that they're idiots.

Re:Dislike (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466763)

Mod. Parent. Up.
You said it exactly - why a slashdot type system is better, and why FB would never allow it.
I agree completely.

Hate (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466471)

Hate

But seriously, Facebook environment is so USSR or even PRC. AND Hotel California.

L-word (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466487)

I couldn't use the word, you know.

Advertisers (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466103)

If advertisers want the feature, my guess is it will be implemented. However, would they want to be associated with advertising based on hatred for someone or something? If the language were softened to ~"not interested", then perhaps.

Re:Advertisers (1)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466279)

Just make a bot-like-clicker and distribute it. I like it all; even all I dislike; we like, you like, they like, bot like, like like.

When enough bot-like all, the like will be liked like dislike.

Re:Advertisers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466825)

I did this once, and Facebook blocked me from liking this for a week. It was apparently "abusive".

Like Like (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467981)

like like

Hide your shield [zeldawiki.org] .

Re:Advertisers (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466343)

"not interested"? Are you crazy, how would advertisers want a feature that lets a user hand out the label "not interested"? In a way, such a label would be deadlier than "dislike". "Not interested" means basically "so bland that I don't even care enough to NOT like it".

Advertisers want BY DEFAULT nothing but positive feedback. Because then your product just looks great, no matter how rotten it actually is. If of 10,000,000 people just 1,000 actually like your product (with 999 being accounts you created yourself for advertising), you have 1,000 "I like it" postings. Despite pleasing about 0.01 percent of your customer base, you look great!

Ban ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466135)

I would like to see legislation that prohibits all forms of advertisement.

Re:Ban ads (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466193)

Runs into free-speech issues, although I would like to see one minor adjustment: A law requiring clear identification when something is an advertisment, or when a company has accepted payment of any form to promote a product. I do think consumers need to at least know that when a movie is showing product X doing something amazing, it's because the manufacturer handed a pile of money to the studio for placement. Currently the situation is so bad that in some fields manufacturers are actually making up fake news report segments to promote their product in the hope that viewers won't realise it's an advertisment.

Marketing opportunity (5, Funny)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466165)

Dear user, did you know that your sworn enemy Frin44 really hates Farmville? Would you like to add him to your Farmville notification list?

Re:Marketing opportunity (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467463)

Jans Midgaard and Bjorn Vyrdden are now in a blood feud.

Re:Marketing opportunity (3, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468463)

Paul Atriedes and Baron Harkonnen have declared kanly.

Re:Marketing opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39469923)

I was drinking coffee when I read that you bastard!

Finally, a reason to join FaceBook (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466177)

Now let's see, how do I add EVERYBODY to my list??

really just depends (3, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466297)

if the application suberts or negatively impacts the model of facebook, which is data mining for the purposes of targeted advertisement, it will be banned.

i predict the addition of a enemy feature will work to incense negative emotional responses to facebook that so far have been confined to things that can be relatively mitigated, for example its policies and terms of service. an "enemy" on your facebook will make you less likely to check facebook, or its related applications. users who previously had ignored intentionally obfuscated security settings may begin to pay more attention to them, thereby costing you advertising data. you may switch social networks for one without any enemies or abandon social networking alltogether for a more controlled and privatized relationship with your friends. the implications of "enemy" are pretty big.

Was done in 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466365)

A friend of mine made an app for this a while back. It even received some press:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/10/10/new_apps_put_the_hate_in_online_networking/?page=full

To What End? (2)

cffrost (885375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466547)

Maintaining a personal list of adversaries sounds to me like a needless security risk. What's the purpose? The only uses I can think of off the top of my head: Remembering which entities to avoid, and/or to warning others of to avoid the same.

Publishing a list of adversaries, accessible by those listed (either directly/intentionally or via hearsay, etc.) is foolish. For one thing, it invites unwanted attention from the listed entities, who may have otherwise been oblivious/benign. Further, it places one's self into the suspect pool of anyone listee who believes that they're on the receiving end of some (real or imagined) external harm. Finally, it tips one's hand, increasing the risk of being identified as the cause of any future action taken against those listed*.

As a brief example, consider Slashdot's relationship system. Your Freaks list looks like some decent targets for some good old fashioned abusive down-mods. Are you being harassed by an AC or experiencing an suspicious share of down-mods? Well, how large is your Foes list?

Ahhhhh, plans within plans within plans (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466755)

Not that I disagree with anything you said, but somehow I feel like I just read an excerpt from the Bene Gesserit handbook.

Re:To What End? (1)

cffrost (885375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467117)

I failed to add the following footnote for my second paragraph:

*It's not my intention to express any view on the morality of concealing information to avoid reprisal from future immoral action; I'm only approaching this from a security perspective.

My apologies for that oversight and other editing errors.

Re:To What End? (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468537)

Publishing a list of adversaries, accessible by those listed (either directly/intentionally or via hearsay, etc.) is foolish.

Worst possible result: it becomes a point of pride to be on someone's Enemies List, and a matter of embarrassment for some people NOT to be on it.

Richard M. Nixon had that happen. As many liberals tried to claim being on his list when they were not as were actually on it.

It should be a float instead of int (2)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466567)

Instead of a binary variable, friend or not friend, 1 or 0, It should be a floating point value with a range from -1 to 1. -1 = strong enemy, 1 = strong friend, anything in between indicates strength of the connection. Default value is 0 for everyone not specifically set to another value. Then you could set levels where certain info is revealed. For example: only friends above 0.9 get to post to my wall, anyone at 0 or below does not even see the wall. etc. That would make it a much more useful social service than now, where some random company that I want to keep up with gets the same privileges as my brother.

Re:It should be a float instead of int (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467497)

That's too complicated for people who have to look up strategy guides for Farmville. Farmville!

Re:It should be a float instead of int (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39468407)

single or double precision ?

Re:It should be a float instead of int (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471799)

Instead it should be between i and -i for all the imaginary friends on Facebook.

It'll get misused like down mods do here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466601)

See subject: You add that kind of 'weapon' in the hands of childish morons and you guarantee it will be misused. Might as well put atom bombs in the hands of children. For commercial products competitors will make 1000's of sock puppets to do the same making it 'appear normal', just like it is done around here by trolltalk.com and tomhudson/barbara not barbie/webmistressrachel (all the same person with 3 guises for registered accounts here) or doesn't HBGary ring a bell too on that account?.

Isn't This the Same Thing Made in 2007? (1)

Paul Slocum (598127) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466653)

"Enemybook was developed in July 2007 by Kevin Matulef." http://www.enemybook.org/ [enemybook.org]

Zuck owns the ultimate dislike (1)

ZipK (1051658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466749)

Ironically, Facebook will exercise the ultimate dislike by banning this app.

Why not to give link to the actual app? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39466805)

Had to jump through heaps of blog posts to finally find the app: https://apps.facebook.com/enemygraph/

More options needed. (1)

mork (62099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467211)

Enemies? Where is the "Nemesis" button when you need it?

Re:More options needed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471205)

I could be a graded scale - bore, douche, idiot, enemy, nemesis, arch-nemesis, concentrated evil...

Attention my old nemesis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39467307)

You are sooo going on this list, Wil Wheaton!

Just a lil bit sad... (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468105)

I'll take whatever mod hit I get...

although it'd be funny to lose karma for this statement.

I'm a buddhist, so the enemy button seems, well, sad.

In order to label any person an enemy, you have to then
actively seek them out on Facebook. Sure, they could
appear on a friend list of a friend, but you're still going to
have to do at least 2 actions (clicks) to make them an
enemy.

Why?

Yes, grudges, hatred, retribution. However, if you are $religion
I'm sure your religion like most talk about forgiveness. And
even if you can't bring to forgive. Forget is pretty good too.

I remember all of my enemies from High School. And currently
they are now my friends on Facebook. Even the ones that did
some pretty long-lasting bad stuff. I'm sure some were even
surprised when I accepted their friend request.

Time heals all wounds... chemically. The sharp edges of a
memory get rounded off... and eventually they are whitewashed
into the background. That's why even a contentious relationship
is remembered with fondness over time.

If you read this far, thank you. It might mean you RTFA too.

Specific to TFA, his enemy button is more social commentary,
about how it's become taboo to show dislike or disfavor, since
the "social aspect" of the internet is actually directed to marketing.
And no one welcomes negativity to their cash cow.

It would even open you up to some potential legal issues when a
person clicks someone as an enemy and that person, EITHER OF
THEM, end up dead. (IANAL) but anyone that lives in the US, knows
what I'm talking about.

They say you can't sell an "enemy click" to an advertiser.
But I call BS on that... I'm sure an enterprising person could create
an algo that correlates enemies as having traits perhaps opposite
enough to make them a selectable demographic.
[FWIW, IP claim there, at least until "America Invents" takes hold]

It will be interesting to see if the app gets to stick around.
I hope they adhered to ALL of the TOS for apps... because I'm
sure that now that this has been /. FB's lawyers fresh off their
we'll sue if you ask for FB credentials will be looking into it.

-AI

Heretic (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39468325)

All Social Media is about the delusion that the diversity of the whole wide world can be boiled down to everyone who's just like you and everyone else who's wrong and must be censored. 'Hate' means fb'rs would have to motivated sufficiently to even consider that someone who's not them is even worthy of attention however negative. This is a mistake. In fact the very thought is wrong and must be censored. Sorry, but those are the rules.

You can "dislike" - sort of (1)

mkwan (2589113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39469805)

If you really want to dislike something, Unicode 6.2 provides a "thumbs down" character (U+1F44E) that you can put in a comment. It isn't supported by many fonts yet, but that will change. Of course, if you REALLY dislike something, Unicode 6.2 also provides a "pile of poo" character (U+1F4A9).

they also need a .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39470633)

"who-the-fuck-are-you" (could be shortened to 'WTF') choice for all those people and companies that were/are 'friended' but not really friends and you have no fucking idea who or what they are.

What we need is "uninteresting" (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39470751)

I want to be able to flag certain people or concepts as being un-interesting, so they will never appear in the scrolling stories. Jerry and Elaine may be my friends, but George isn't, and I just don't care to read anything George says on Jerry's or Elaine's "wall." I would like George to just vanish from my viewpoint. George shouldn't know that I find him un-interesting, and neither should Jerry or Elaine or anyone else. That feature alone would eliminate 90% of the "spam" on social media services.

Two Buttons I Want (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39471017)

1. Should Not Be Alive

2. Should Never Have Been Born.

Wizard of Id (1)

IwantToKeepAnon (411424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39473969)

just came out today [photobucket.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?