It has happened to anyone who uses social media that they cannot express their opinion on an important topic with the options provided. Liking a post that talks bitterly about domestic violence could also be understood as supporting violence. It's even worse when you announce a death in the family to the public on Facebook, and your friends want to share their condolences by liking the post. On Twitter, you have the option of retweeting or favoriting someone's post, which is at best "status neutral", but is usually treated as an expression of agreement. Even when you want to highlight or point out something with which you deeply disagree.
Social media connects (directly) more people in the world than any other form of communication in history, and the format of that communication is not trivial. That's why the announcement that Facebook will introduce a "dislike" option for those who disagree with the post was watched with attention. The news was incorrect or the network changed its mind, only Mark Zuckerberg announced that there will be no disliking for now, but that they are aware that users need a range of options to express their views. Of course, there is the possibility of writing comments, but not everyone is clever, in a good mood or simply has nothing smart to say except to give a thumbs down or thumbs up. This is what previous experience shows.
Liking has become a serious industry, to move a little from simple feelings. The number of likes affects media campaigns, how much money will be chosen for something. Also, likes influence trends. A song, a shoe or a movie with a lot of likes becomes a fashion, and all of that at some point turns into real value, that is, money. That's why there are bots (internet robots) that generate likes for money. And where there is protection against software likes, "bots" are used, i.e. live people who like for small money. The job is easy (like!) since you only need to click one button. By creating new options, it would become more complicated, which would be beneficial for the user, but would make life miserable for others in the process, especially marketing. Facebook lives on. Therefore, it should not be surprising that they do not make that decision about the negative button easily.
But they announced a new option, that is, they joined the battle against drunken pictures and drunkenness. Facebook is working on software that should distinguish between pictures you take when you're in a happier mood and then want to put them on your profile. The software will supposedly recognize images that are currently making our hangovers worse and prevent us from uploading them. It will also prevent us from posting images of others without their knowledge and consent. It works on the principle of recognizing faces in the photo in order to then analyze the mutual relationships of the user and others in the picture and determine whether the publication is appropriate. Then the network asks you if you're sure your work colleagues or mother should see this picture. Personally, I think that the question is pretentious for a drunk person, I would recommend them to postpone the post for eight hours, at least, so if the user stays with his decision, then let him indulge in a new range of ratings from other friends and their friends and so on indefinitely.
If, despite everything, something you don't like appears on the Internet, try the tactics used by the Sony company, whose most confidential data was stolen and released on the Internet (topic of the previous Navigator). They appealed to the media not to publish, that is, to further spread or use the kidnapped information. They are hoping for solidarity and awareness of others who may experience the same, which is correct logic. On the other hand is the real truth about Angelina and Brad, George Clooney's salary, heights and lengths and that from the keyboards of those who know it best.
If colleagues listen to them, they have a like from me. Otherwise, let Facebook rush the other options.
