5 ms·

Facebook’s “downvote” system begins rolling out wider in US

42 points by shawndumas 8y ago

0x00000000 8y ago
Looks like they've accepted they can't censor people to suppress "problematic" ideas without criticism, so instead they will let the hivemind do it for them. "Downvote things that are uncivil or irrelevant" is the biggest joke. I don't think it will make any comment section better and such mechanisms usually tend to push communities to one extreme or the other. Imagine if twitter had voting...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
  Twitter does have voting - so I’m not sure what your point is.
  - 0x00000000 8y ago
    It isn't voting any more than Facebook likes are voting. You can't activately suppress things you don't like to make it harder for other people to see them.
pirocks 8y ago
I'm curious to see how this will turn out particularly on controversial news articles. Most news site comment sections have a majority liberal/conservative audience, which curses minority viewpoints to be heavily downvoted. But she if this is true on Facebook.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  It has more to do with judging posts as incivil or irrelevant, kind of like HN's downvote system, as opposed to an "unlike" feature, so I don't think they would apply this feature to posts for news articles. But who knows! I think the results would be hilariously disastrous if thousands of people get to downvote news stories on a regular basis.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > It has more to do with judging posts as incivil or irrelevant, kind of like HN's downvote system I have definitely witnessed HN's downvote system used frequently for other reasons, so if we're comparing against HN, I don't see how they can keep it to those reasons either...
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Just want to second this. I regularly have comments downvoted with no substantive pushback in comment form.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        The whole point of downvotes is to improve S/N ratio by reducing the visibility of noise by both deemphasizing the comments that are noise and channeling pushback to such comments into the voting system rather than additional comments. So, no, not getting pushback in comments is not supporting evidence for improper use of downvotes, it is the intent of downvotes.
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        I get it. The instances I’m talking about are, IMO, pretty clearly just irrational disagreement.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  There are definitely topics HN cannot discuss. https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/E5uNNxmnjir https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/E5uNNxmn... And not becausse it was submitted and discussed elsewwhere. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=facebook%20sandy%20hook&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=facebook%20sandy%20hook&sort=b...
ravenstine 8y ago
I can't wait to experience the incivility of HN downvotes multiplied by 100 on a regular basis. I know that's kind of snarky, but in all seriousness, I don't trust the average person to know what's civil or irrelevant. Everyone talks about information and conversation bubbles, yet Big Tech continues to cause the problem that everyone and their grandma knows that they create, and we accept it because it's framed as a new toy. It's as if Facebook isn't as unfun as it gets at this point. The only people who I know that are active on it are old people, and my friends in my age range are decreasingly online and even less active. The more that it exists to satisfy perpetual malcontents, the less useful it seems to be.
- ProfessorLayton 8y ago
  Perhaps, but what seems to work better in HN is that the "score" is private to the OP (Until a certain downvote threshold). IMO showing a score is unproductive for all parties involved — it encourages up/down brigades, and conflates popular opinion with useful discussion.
  - ravenstine 8y ago
    That's true, and an interesting observation. It does look like they're going to show scores, based on the screenshot in the article. One must wonder if their actual intention is to improve the quality of comments or to improve "engagement" by creating an addicting means of detracting from viewpoints a person doesn't like.
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    I, for one, love asking an honest-to-god question on a potentially contentious topic and then watching my score bounce up and down as folks ascribe intent to the question. Perfect example, a few weeks ago someone wrote something along the lines of "Harassing Trump's cabinet is getting results" - now I don't particularly follow the news so I have no idea if anything genuinely came about of the harassment - so I asked "What outcomes have there been?" and I watched that question get downvoted and upvoted oscillating back and forth until several hours later someone replied that Scott Pruit had resigned, stating the harassment as the reason why at which point I thanked the replier for actually taking the time to provide a constructive response. Too often folks just assume intent for every little comment or question and use a downvote to say "I don't like your opinion" regardless of how valid or invalid it may be. I've been own Hacker News for many years, and it's definitely gotten worse, but this has always been a bit of a bastion of maturity. Not always, but it's better than discussing on Reddit and watching the Dunning-Kruger effect in real-time. I can only imagine Facebook with downvotes will be another rehash of Reddit comments. The beauty of Facebook not having a fire-and-forget downvote system is that it actually requires one to write out their displeasure so it at least forces some semblance of dialogue.
rixrax 8y ago
They don't need downvote system. They 'just' need to make it so that I can only see comments posted by people that I'm actually friends with. That way I don't have to care about 10000 Russian troll bots and others writing stuff in comments section when NPR or WaPo or Al Jazeera or Fox news or someone else that I am following posts something. Actually - now that I am thinking about this, yes, please, give me this option. Even as an opt-in option. I still want to follow news and other organizations. And maybe even comment, but I only want organization itself, and my friends to see my comments. And I only want to see what my friends comment. I am ok with my small echo chamber. Currently it's soul crushing to look at the comments section on almost any news postings. Vitriol and ignorance run strong there.
- Chris_Chambers 8y ago
  I’m always shocked to come across someone who believes the Russia garbage.
techsin101 8y ago
didnt fb had dislike btn at some point and then removed it
techsin101 8y ago
so they're readding it back now
jameslk 8y ago
> Meaning, if you tap the "like" button and down-vote on the same comment, those actions don't cancel each other out. This sounds like a really confusing user experience. Also, showing the vote number in addition to reactions complicates the social signaling.

42 points by shawndumas 8y ago

Looks like they've accepted they can't censor people to suppress "problematic" ideas without criticism, so instead they will let the hivemind do it for them. "Downvote things that are uncivil or irrelevant" is the biggest joke. I don't think it will make any comment section better and such mechanisms usually tend to push communities to one extreme or the other. Imagine if twitter had voting...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
Twitter does have voting - so I’m not sure what your point is.
- 0x00000000 8y ago
  It isn't voting any more than Facebook likes are voting. You can't activately suppress things you don't like to make it harder for other people to see them.

pirocks 8y ago

I'm curious to see how this will turn out particularly on controversial news articles. Most news site comment sections have a majority liberal/conservative audience, which curses minority viewpoints to be heavily downvoted. But she if this is true on Facebook.

ravenstine 8y ago
It has more to do with judging posts as incivil or irrelevant, kind of like HN's downvote system, as opposed to an "unlike" feature, so I don't think they would apply this feature to posts for news articles. But who knows! I think the results would be hilariously disastrous if thousands of people get to downvote news stories on a regular basis.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > It has more to do with judging posts as incivil or irrelevant, kind of like HN's downvote system I have definitely witnessed HN's downvote system used frequently for other reasons, so if we're comparing against HN, I don't see how they can keep it to those reasons either...
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Just want to second this. I regularly have comments downvoted with no substantive pushback in comment form.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      The whole point of downvotes is to improve S/N ratio by reducing the visibility of noise by both deemphasizing the comments that are noise and channeling pushback to such comments into the voting system rather than additional comments. So, no, not getting pushback in comments is not supporting evidence for improper use of downvotes, it is the intent of downvotes.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        I get it. The instances I’m talking about are, IMO, pretty clearly just irrational disagreement.
dredmorbius 8y ago
There are definitely topics HN cannot discuss. https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/E5uNNxmnjir https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/E5uNNxmn... And not becausse it was submitted and discussed elsewwhere. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=facebook%20sandy%20hook&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=facebook%20sandy%20hook&sort=b...

ravenstine 8y ago

I can't wait to experience the incivility of HN downvotes multiplied by 100 on a regular basis. I know that's kind of snarky, but in all seriousness, I don't trust the average person to know what's civil or irrelevant. Everyone talks about information and conversation bubbles, yet Big Tech continues to cause the problem that everyone and their grandma knows that they create, and we accept it because it's framed as a new toy. It's as if Facebook isn't as unfun as it gets at this point. The only people who I know that are active on it are old people, and my friends in my age range are decreasingly online and even less active. The more that it exists to satisfy perpetual malcontents, the less useful it seems to be.

ProfessorLayton 8y ago
Perhaps, but what seems to work better in HN is that the "score" is private to the OP (Until a certain downvote threshold). IMO showing a score is unproductive for all parties involved — it encourages up/down brigades, and conflates popular opinion with useful discussion.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  That's true, and an interesting observation. It does look like they're going to show scores, based on the screenshot in the article. One must wonder if their actual intention is to improve the quality of comments or to improve "engagement" by creating an addicting means of detracting from viewpoints a person doesn't like.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  I, for one, love asking an honest-to-god question on a potentially contentious topic and then watching my score bounce up and down as folks ascribe intent to the question. Perfect example, a few weeks ago someone wrote something along the lines of "Harassing Trump's cabinet is getting results" - now I don't particularly follow the news so I have no idea if anything genuinely came about of the harassment - so I asked "What outcomes have there been?" and I watched that question get downvoted and upvoted oscillating back and forth until several hours later someone replied that Scott Pruit had resigned, stating the harassment as the reason why at which point I thanked the replier for actually taking the time to provide a constructive response. Too often folks just assume intent for every little comment or question and use a downvote to say "I don't like your opinion" regardless of how valid or invalid it may be. I've been own Hacker News for many years, and it's definitely gotten worse, but this has always been a bit of a bastion of maturity. Not always, but it's better than discussing on Reddit and watching the Dunning-Kruger effect in real-time. I can only imagine Facebook with downvotes will be another rehash of Reddit comments. The beauty of Facebook not having a fire-and-forget downvote system is that it actually requires one to write out their displeasure so it at least forces some semblance of dialogue.

rixrax 8y ago

They don't need downvote system. They 'just' need to make it so that I can only see comments posted by people that I'm actually friends with. That way I don't have to care about 10000 Russian troll bots and others writing stuff in comments section when NPR or WaPo or Al Jazeera or Fox news or someone else that I am following posts something. Actually - now that I am thinking about this, yes, please, give me this option. Even as an opt-in option. I still want to follow news and other organizations. And maybe even comment, but I only want organization itself, and my friends to see my comments. And I only want to see what my friends comment. I am ok with my small echo chamber. Currently it's soul crushing to look at the comments section on almost any news postings. Vitriol and ignorance run strong there.

Chris_Chambers 8y ago
I’m always shocked to come across someone who believes the Russia garbage.

techsin101 8y ago

didnt fb had dislike btn at some point and then removed it

techsin101 8y ago

so they're readding it back now

jameslk 8y ago

> Meaning, if you tap the "like" button and down-vote on the same comment, those actions don't cancel each other out. This sounds like a really confusing user experience. Also, showing the vote number in addition to reactions complicates the social signaling.