Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dislike daily limit
- Thread starter techfreak23
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think @bousozoku is asking what specifically you mean by "AI." What artificial intelligence?
What do you mean? Judging someone because of their age, or speculating someone's age? I think both are equally inappropriate.
The same AI that has been used by social platforms to profile people for a while now.
A "disagree" or "dislike" is much better suited for "profiling" as it inherently carries an obviously stronger "emotional investment". A "like" is much more neutral in nature and therefore harder to "read" although it is still suitable to learn your musical preferences(for example).
I mean when a young users post about their age it is usually not a big revelation for anybody. People "read" info about others on an instinctive level. Nobody is forcing anybody to post or react if you don't want to be "read" by others.
Are you talking about this (infamous) thread? I don't quite get how that relates to the topic of this thread...
I might back away from this one, cause I feel that this thread is straying, and I don't want to derail it more... this is supposed to be about MacRumors' limitation of dislikes on news articles.
EDIT: I'll say one more thing—it is true that nobody is forcing you to post something or reveal personal information. That is completely an individual decision. In some cases, it might be good for people to know about, and in some cases not.
People who accept limits of physics and business realities and voice anything which can be construed as positive about an Apple product will often get a thumbs down from people whose mission appears to be to only criticize Apple products. I suspect that may be one of the things the limit is designed to ‘protect’ us from. Regardless, I consider a thumbs down from them a badge of honor, but I accept the limit as I accept Apple’s limits, their business decision.
A lot of this seems to be bad human behavior and misunderstanding the meaning of words. I get it, humans are emotional creatures but we really should stop and think first before reacting.
If I click "Disagree", I literally mean, I disagree with what the person just typed. It could be that they are just flat out wrong (misinformation/disinformation) or they are being overly emotional or impassioned by something that is arguable (not necessarily correct). It is not meant to make the person feel bad. But I find that people get upset and retaliate anyway.
This happened recently when I guess I must have "disagreed" with a specific user a couple times in a thread. He got annoyed by this and gave me an "angry" on a completely unrelated thread/post that didn't have any content to get upset over.
If I click "Disagree", I literally mean, I disagree with what the person just typed. It could be that they are just flat out wrong (misinformation/disinformation) or they are being overly emotional or impassioned by something that is arguable (not necessarily correct). It is not meant to make the person feel bad. But I find that people get upset and retaliate anyway.
This happened recently when I guess I must have "disagreed" with a specific user a couple times in a thread. He got annoyed by this and gave me an "angry" on a completely unrelated thread/post that didn't have any content to get upset over.
That's ****** up, what the hell?! I wonder if that was intentional or if it was just coincidence. I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberate.
I was taken aback because I always thought that people understood the intent of "disagree" but I got a notification that I received an "angry" like a minute after I finished on that other thread. I'd like to think that it was a coincidence but it was very interesting timing and, like I said, the post that was hit was not controversial.
I've not seen reactions other than "like" available on other forums I or my family have used, aside for forums aimed at children. It's very peculiar to me, and is a negative of this site, in my opinion.
Some people here sadly "spam" the site with endless angry faces and dislikes, often with zero logic, perhaps just because they don't like the poster in question. Yes, I can block the posters engaging in such stupidity and it will prevent me seeing that so and so gave me 20 likes and 40 angry faces in my news feed, but that in itself is challenging at times because if they limit who can view their profile you have to search to find a post they made to be allowed to block them.
Some people here sadly "spam" the site with endless angry faces and dislikes, often with zero logic, perhaps just because they don't like the poster in question. Yes, I can block the posters engaging in such stupidity and it will prevent me seeing that so and so gave me 20 likes and 40 angry faces in my news feed, but that in itself is challenging at times because if they limit who can view their profile you have to search to find a post they made to be allowed to block them.
I agree -- it feels like the sort of thing that Facebook/Meta would come up with to drive anger and thus engagement.
"Disliking things" and "laughing at people" (not meant in a "humorous" way) are not adding anything other than increased polarization.
People already disagree plenty -- which is fine -- but adding little emoji/reaction ways for people to poke and prod at each other does nothing but piss everyone off.
It blows me away that leadership here thinks the negative reactions are a value add to this site and experience.
I feel it would benefit everyone if they would learn that their value is not based on human opinion. Likes, dislikes and reviews are nothing more than human opinion and only have the value and power that is placed on them by the person receiving them - something that has no power or value also has no effect. If people can learn this simple fact, then they wouldn’t get upset nearly as often.
It's the mere fact that you know people are TRYING to antagonise you. Even if you dismiss it, don't care, or block them... the fact you know they're trying to be a jerk is jarring. It's as if this site wants to make everyone combative.
Great ... let's nuke all the reactions then
Sounds like you sort of agree they aren't adding anything anyways?
(especially negative ones)
I've long advocated that only "likes/loves" should exist and that the actual number shouldn't be publicly shown and it should only be used for boosting in the "reaction score" sort mechanism.
Honestly, the mere fact anyone finds reasons to defend negative reaction emojis shows me the problem with them.
The dirty little secret here is that many people like them to exist so they can continue to bother and harass people, even if they've been blocked.
There's absolutely no positively affirmative and useful case to have "negative reactions"
The dirty little secret here is that many people like them to exist so they can continue to bother and harass people, even if they've been blocked.
There's absolutely no positively affirmative and useful case to have "negative reactions"
It doesn’t have to be jarring. I’m ex military.. Imagine yourself inside an armored personnel carrier. You can hear the enemy bullets hitting the outside of the vehicle, but you know they won’t penetrate the armor. We would just giggle and move on. I do realize that it’s easier said than done, but I feel it is something worth putting into practice. The enemy can only work with what you give them.
100%. I don't understand why management can't at least change it so once you block someone you don't ever have to see their trolling downvotes/laughs/angry faces any more.
I've asked for it I think 7+ times now maybe? Maybe more?
Falls on deaf ears for some reason so I can only assume leadership likes it due to engagement metrics?
Toxic side effects be damned apparently
Hmmm, I'm not sure many soldiers would say coming under fire improved the experience of foreign tours, even if the vehicle they were in was heavily armoured.
One of my best friends is still in the military, and he found a way to compartmentalise everything. He says he doesn't deal anxious or fearful in combat. When he has to come home and deal with bills and relationships, then he panics. I'll have to ask him if he found humour in being shot at when he knew he should be safe.
Not to mention... this is a tech discussion forum.
We are here to share and enjoy and have a good time, ideally..
I'm not sure many of us are here to "come under fire" from people who dislike them or vice versa
You’re right, we are not here to come under fire.. but come under fire we do because others haven’t learned to be respectful. My point was that we don’t have to allow their shortcomings to negatively affect us. I chose to use the word “allow” because, like it or not, that is exactly what is happening. If I receive my counsel from the difficulties in life I will be shaped by inferior things.
Did the moderators/management ever give you a reason why they choose not to conceal from view reactions from those we deem it necessary to block?