When I want to express something in person, I open my mouth, and lo and behold, words come out. I’m thankful that I don’t react by choosing between preset emotions: Shall I show my frustration with a red face and furrowed brows, or should I let a tear escape my eye?
Facebook seems to think differently. With its new “reactions,” an extension of the “like” button that includes emoticons such as “love” and “wow,” Facebook is dictating the information we consume and restricting what meaningful interactions we make. Reactions are conducive to anything but authentic “social media.”
In theory, Facebook rearranges our news feeds based on our “likes” and clicks to prioritize content that interests us. That’s fine. But the beauty of sorting posts by likes is that anything we feel strongly enough to react to — whether with laughter, sadness or frustration — stays high on our feed.
With the new reactions, Facebook might choose to show me more “haha” posts than “angry” posts, making decisions for how I’m going to feel even if I don’t want to feel that way. Facebook could move “sad” or “angry” posts lower down in my feed, even if I find more intellectual satisfaction in the problems an “angry” post describes than the cute photo a “love” post contains.
Facebook has not yet modified its algorithm to distinguish between different reactions and modify users’ newsfeeds or ads accordingly. According to Facebook product manager Sammi Krug, however, the company will do so eventually.
This aside, though, the reactions present a more serious problem than filtering posts by emotion. By simply offering emoticons, they also offer an easy way out of more meaningful human interactions, worsening the already limited emotional scope of these online exchanges.
Take the “sadness” reaction, for instance. One of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s goals for reactions had been to increase “empathy.”
When a friend goes through loss or a difficult time, we may be tempted to click the “sadness” button. But words of comfort will always mean more than any emoticon. A comment usually differs from others on the same post and is attached to the commenter who can individually express sympathy, whereas an emoticon is grouped with others and only reflects the effortless click of a button.
Words spoken in person or a personal message are best of all, but the simple comment “I’m sorry for your loss” still shows effort because it is personalized by each commenter. Surely that feels more genuine than a bright yellow sad face with a tear.
Worse, with the new reactions, people may be less inclined to leave thoughtful comments. Intelligent discourse helps keep Facebook from feeling mindless.
Consider the “anger” reaction. Instead of being able to mindlessly click the “anger” button, people would most certainly benefit from thinking about how they really feel. Facebook has always claimed that it does not want to spread negativity; however, the “anger” button, which gives people an easy way out of explaining why they dislike something, does just that.
In short, the new emoticons are likely to become emotional shields that prevent users from tapping into a meaningful spectrum of emotions, ultimately undermining the quality of online communications.
Given that Facebook is the world’s largest social network and that we spend so much time on it, these reactions are a problem to be taken seriously. They make it too easy to go “wow” when we should be saying something thoughtful instead.