Thu Aug 4, 2022, 08:32 PM
Quixote1818 (27,035 posts)
Facebook needs to allow posters to disable the laughing emoji
I totally agree with this. Facebook probably won't ditch it because all they care about are clicks and ad revenue and the laughing emoji on serious topics, makes them money no matter how distasteful.
by POLLOLOCO51 Posted on APRIL 30, 2021 Share Tweet 0 Share 12 In the past, users on Facebook have reacted to newsfeed posts, with either just a like, or commenting. Not so long ago, Facebook added reactions, like laughing, love, and angry emoticons. This has lately become a serious problem, with “people” (or bots?) inappropriately reacting to news posts, using laughing emojis. Especially, serious news posts of people suffering and dying, during this pandemic. Facebook needs to step in, and add an option to disable this feature! Currently, there is no way to disable this by users, and actually hurts efforts to combat misinformation (laugh reactions create impression, some news is not serious). https://www.thurrott.com/forums/general-discussion/uncategorized/thread/facebook-has-a-serious-problem
|
16 replies, 903 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Quixote1818 | Thursday | OP |
Tetrachloride | Thursday | #1 | |
Celerity | Thursday | #2 | |
WhiskeyGrinder | Thursday | #3 | |
Sympthsical | Thursday | #4 | |
Cartoonist | Thursday | #5 | |
Karma13612 | Thursday | #7 | |
EX500rider | Thursday | #10 | |
Karma13612 | Thursday | #6 | |
SYFROYH | Thursday | #8 | |
alphafemale | Friday | #16 | |
brooklynite | Thursday | #9 | |
alphafemale | Friday | #12 | |
Quixote1818 | Friday | #13 | |
alphafemale | Friday | #15 | |
alphafemale | Friday | #11 | |
Quixote1818 | Friday | #14 |
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 08:45 PM
Tetrachloride (3,144 posts)
1. Facebook would allow infinite spam if they could
I believe— its not what FB should do. Its what FB will be forced to do.
And its up to not enable facebook beyond normal interests. |
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 08:54 PM
Celerity (30,807 posts)
2. fuck FB, fuck Zuck, its a giant shithole I avoid like the plague, so its emojis matter nothing to me
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 09:47 PM
WhiskeyGrinder (17,452 posts)
3. Maybe they should do something about the bots instead.
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 09:52 PM
Sympthsical (4,723 posts)
4. If someone cannot handle an emoji
The internet may not be for them.
|
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 10:19 PM
Cartoonist (7,006 posts)
5. A serious problem?
🤪
|
Response to Cartoonist (Reply #5)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 11:10 PM
Karma13612 (3,898 posts)
7. Yes, it actually is. For those of us who use FB, it's very disruptive. Eom.
Response to Karma13612 (Reply #7)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 11:45 PM
EX500rider (8,114 posts)
10. Hard to see how it's disruptive
Idiots responding poorly can just be ignored.
|
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 11:09 PM
Karma13612 (3,898 posts)
6. I'm aware that some people don't believe Facebook should exist.
I don’t agree. I think it provides a valuable tool when used properly, and with the understanding that it is fraught the bullcrap.
So, this comment is really aimed at those who are familiar with FB and use it. I for one would agree that getting rid of the laughing emoji would be very very helpful. As the original post points out, bots as well as cruel thoughtless members are using the laugh emoji to make fun of and hurt those who post sincere comments. I have been the brunt of laugh emoji campaigns. It’s hurtful and disruptive. But, instead of cowering, I have finally gotten tough. When someone leaves an inappropriate laugh emoji on one of my comments, or even on someone else’s, I name and shame. I reply to the comment that has gotten a laugh emoji, and I speak directly to the person. I ask what they thought was so funny. And I’m not the only one who is doing it now. Further, when I write a comment about a controversial topic, I very often end the comment with the following: “OK, now go ahead and leave all the laugh emoji’s you want. I don’t care. I’m ready. Bring it on.” The funny thing is, very often, I get zero (0) laugh emoji’s when I do that. Zero. Facebook is useful to me. I will only stop using it when another more robust, free, easy to use, well-adopted platform is made available. One that has forums on Fountain Pens, Formula 1 Racing, Bookbinding, Photography, and news, etc. Again, I know many many DU’ers don’t have any use for FB. I understand. I see it differently but I do agree that Zuckerberg and FB need to be better controlled and monitored. ![]() |
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 11:13 PM
SYFROYH (32,824 posts)
8. they are just emojis.
If unwelcome emojis are a "serious problem" it's time to retire your FB account.
I really enjoy my FB account. |
Response to SYFROYH (Reply #8)
Fri Aug 5, 2022, 01:03 AM
alphafemale (18,266 posts)
16. really.
I do wonder sometimes how people cope in the real world if a silly little laugh emoji disrupts their functionality.
|
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Thu Aug 4, 2022, 11:20 PM
brooklynite (80,028 posts)
9. Explain WHY this is a "serious problem"
I don’t use emojis (anywhere). But if someone wants to react to a post I make by singing one, I’m at a loss to understand why that’s problematic.
The OP claims their use is “inappropriate”. That, in my opinion is a subjective judgement which shouldn’t be up to Facebook (or any other platform) to adjudicate. Nobody has a right to expect everyone to agree with their posts. |
Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)
Fri Aug 5, 2022, 12:14 AM
alphafemale (18,266 posts)
12. People so hypersensitive to be damaged by negative reactions on FB
...probably should not be on social media at all.
In fact, they maybe should not venture outdoors or turn on a TV. Rather than trying to inflict their boring sanitized bubble wrapped world on the rest of us. Next, roller coasters that go safe and slowly down hills. |
Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)
Fri Aug 5, 2022, 12:48 AM
Quixote1818 (27,035 posts)
13. A good example would be where ABC News posts about climate change and the article has more laughing
emoji's than likes etc. So what it does is gives readers the idea that the article is full of shit because most people laughed at it. It cheapens the discourse.
The article just suggests allowing the option for a poster to choose which emoji's they would like to allow. |
Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #13)
Fri Aug 5, 2022, 12:55 AM
alphafemale (18,266 posts)
15. Still a stupid idea.
If you can't handle reactions don't post.
It is really that simple. I fully understand that there are just enough science deniers to find and react to certain things and that they tend to clump in herds. We don't need laws about it to protect fee-fees. |
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
Fri Aug 5, 2022, 12:02 AM
alphafemale (18,266 posts)
11. People are so fragile they need protected from a silly little icon?
How in the world do they walk about in an actual world?
This has to be a joke post? |
Response to alphafemale (Reply #11)
Fri Aug 5, 2022, 12:49 AM
Quixote1818 (27,035 posts)