GOOD

Forget The “Dislike” Button, Here’s How Facebook Could Make the Internet a Better Place

The key to a better social network isn’t liking something or not. It’s expressing empathy across the digital divide.

image via vimeo screen capture

Are we ready to live in a post-“Like” world?


That, at least, is what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has in mind for us, announcing recently that his company was well underway developing a new interaction button to go alongside the social media giant’s now-ubiquitous “thumbs up” icon. Zuckerberg’s announcement came during a recent Q&A, where he was asked about the possibility of adding things like “I’m sorry,” “Interesting” or even the long-sought-after “Dislike” button to a user’s palette of interaction options.

Here’s Mark:

[/vimeo]

Media outlets were quick to jump on the “Facebook is making a ‘Dislike’ button” bandwagon, but that’s not exactly what Zuckerberg has in mind. In fact, using language that seems specifically designed as a swipe against Reddit’s up/down voting structure, Zuckerberg hinted at designing a more textured type of interaction: Here’s what he actually said:

People aren’t looking for an ability to downvote other people’s posts. What they really want is to be able to express empathy. Not every moment is a good moment, right? And if you are sharing something that is sad, whether it’s something in current events like the refugee crisis that touches you or if a family member passed away, then it might not feel comfortable to Like that post

The goal, then, seems not to be to add a barbed arrow of displeasure into a Facebook user’s quiver of stock responses. Rather, it’s to provide a measure of nuance that extends beyond a “Like/Dislike” binary.

So, what does this all mean?

Well, nothing yet. Aside from Zuckerberg’s statement, and a similarly unspecific one made in December, not much is actually known about what Facebook’s new feature would actually look like. Still, speculation has run rampant, with opinion divided on whether offering any sort of alternative to Facebook’s single, unambiguously positive button option would both make the site more negative for users, as well as scare off brands from advertising across the social network.

Concerns as to whether a “Dislike” button (or anything less that full-throated positivism, for that matter) could somehow hurt a Facebook user’s experience are, however, overblown. Anyone worried that Facebook could become a more negative place simply by introducing a new button has clearly never spent all that much time on the internet, where negativism, malice, and general dick-ish behavior are doing just fine, button or not.

But if a straightforward “Dislike” button isn’t what Zuckerberg has in mind, what could Facebook do to help make the site, and the internet in general, a better place? ​The key, as Zuckerberg points out, is “empathy”–the ability to make an emotional connection–both positive and negative–​with someone else.

image via wikimedia commons

Imagine, then, buttons that could express an array of conditional responses: Sympathy, support, curiosity, even ambivalence. Unburdened by the fear that their “Like” could be misinterpreted by the recipient, users might feel more at ease responding to one another’s posts–not just the light, silly stuff, but the serious, significant, and sometimes-unpleasant things, as well. The rate of interactions between people could increase, and with it, a sense of connection–of shared experience, no matter how fleeting or ephemeral.

Of course, Facebook users have always had the ability to express the full range of emotional responses since the site’s inception: Write a comment. But for those uncomfortable with the prospect of composing a full message for someone with whom they may have grown out of touch, or intimated a topical significance of a friend’s status update, Zuckerberg’s empathetic announcement should be welcome news.

Or, at the very least, well worth a “Like.”

Articles
Photo by Li-An Lim on Unsplash

The future generations will have to live on this Earth for years to come, and, not surprisingly, they're very concerned about the fate of our planet. We've seen a rise in youth activists, such as Greta Thunberg, who are raising awareness for climate change. A recent survey indicates that those efforts are working, as more and more Americans (especially young Americans) feel concerned about climate change.

A new CBS News poll found that 70% of Americans between 18 and 29 feel climate change is a crisis or a serious problem, while 58% of Americans over the age of 65 share those beliefs. Additionally, younger generations are more likely to feel like it's their personal responsibility to address climate change, as well as think that transitioning to 100% renewable energy is viable. Overall, 25% of Americans feel that climate change is a "crisis," and 35% feel it is a "serious problem." 10% of Americans said they think climate change is a minor problem, and 16% of Americans feel it is not a problem that worries them.

The poll found that concern for the environment isn't a partisan issue – or at least when it comes to younger generations. Two-thirds of Republicans under the age of 45 feel that addressing climate change is their duty, sentiments shared by only 38% of Republicans over the age of 45.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet

The healthcare systems in the United States and the United Kingdom couldn't be more different.

The UK's National Health Service is the largest government-run healthcare system in the world and the US's is largest private sector system.

Almost all essential health services in the UK are free, whereas in America cost can vary wildly based on insurance, co pays and what the hospitals and physicians choose to charge.

A medical bill in the US

One of the largest differences is cost. The average person in the UK spends £2,989 ($3915) per year on healthcare (most of which is collected through taxes), whereas the average American spends around $10,739 a year.

So Americans should obviously be getting better care, right? Well, the average life expectancy in the UK is higher and infant mortality rate is lower than that in the US.

RELATED: The World Health Organization declares war on the out of control price of insulin

Plus, in the U.S., only 84% of people are covered by private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. Sixteen percent of the population are forced to pay out of pocket.

In the UK, everyone is covered unless they are visiting the country or an undocumented resident.

Prescription drugs can cost Americans an arm and a leg, but in the UK, prescriptions or either free or capped at £8.60 ($11.27).

via Wikimedia Commons

The one drawback to the NHS system is responsiveness. In the UK people tend to wait longer for inessential surgeries, doctor's appointments, and in emergency rooms. Whereas, the US is ranked as the most responsive country in the world.

RELATED: Alarmingly high insulin prices are forcing Americans to flock to Canada to buy the drug

The New York Times printed a fair evaluation of the UK's system:

The service is known for its simplicity: It is free at the point of use to anyone who needs it. Paperwork is minimal, and most patients never see a bill. … No one needs to delay medical treatment until he or she can afford it, and virtually everyone is covered. …

According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spent 17.2 percent of its economic output on health care in 2016, compared with 9.7 percent in Britain. Yet Britain has a higher life expectancy at birth and lower infant mortality.

Citizens in each country have an interesting perspective on each other's healthcare systems. UK citizens think it's inhumane for Americans have to pay through the nose when they're sick or injured. While Americans are skeptical of socialist medicine.

A reporter from Politics Joe hit the streets of London and asked everyday people what they think Americans pay for healthcare and they were completely shocked.

Health
via Found Animals Foundation / Flickr

Service dogs are true blessings that provide a wide array of services for their owners based on their disability.

They can provide preventative alerts for people with epilepsy and dysautonomia. They can do small household tasks like turning lights on and off or providing stability for their owners while standing or walking.

For those with PTSD they can provide emotional support to help them in triggering situations.

However, there are many people out there who fraudulently claim their pets are service or emotional support animals. These trained animals can cause disturbances in businesses or on public transportation.

Keep Reading Show less
Communities