Tag Archives: technology

The “dislike” button: further ruminations

ReadWriteWeb posted an editorial piece on why the “dislike” button is not coming to Facebook. I can see the author’s point about how the button could have adverse effects upon brands (I’m assuming the “Ripoff Report” sort of effect, in the worst case).

However, from my own perspective and outside of the business perspective, I haven’t exactly found any specific function for the “dislike” or “mod down” button idea, other than to visually show how many people didn’t like an item. Unlike the controversial function of the button on Digg and Reddit (in which a sufficient number of mods-down results in a demotion of the item from the all-important front page), the likes of Facebook and Twitter do not have such all-important front pages which would allow for the easy disappearance of a promoted item due to sufficient amounts of “dislikes” or “downtweets”.

At present, YouTube’s “dislike” button also lacks a specific function other than denoting the number of people who simply did not like a particular video. Instead, an alternate link for the “reporting” of the video to YouTube censors appears when one clicks the “dislike” button.

That’s it. No other function. No impact beyond an aesthetically-skin-deep perception of “democracy”.

Perhaps this neutered version of the “user moderation” feature is useful to those who simply wish to promote their brands or content (and not accept critique of the same), but it bodes ill for future experiments in online user engagement, especially those which may take a functional cue from the likes of Digg and Reddit.

File-sharing: my opinion

Originally posted here.

I have been watching the news lately, and alot of what I see has been dedicated to the so-called “crime” of file-sharing. The RIAA, the same organization which notifies the public whenever an artist’s newly-released record hits “silver”, “gold”,  or the ever-famous “platinum” status, has been slapping subpoenas on ordinary citizens in the United States, Canada, and even Europe, charging such people with “stealing, or tampering with, the copyrights of music artists”.

First of all, let this be certain: the RIAA is an organization of people who look out for the welfare and prosperity of the music industry fatcats, not for the artists. This organization is only satisfied with the three words: “Buy My CD”. Anything else is of no importance to this organization.

The organization only uses the word “copyright” for the benefit of the people who they are supposed to represent: the fatcats. To this end they will use and construe with any type of legal jargon that will either confuse the public and/or win the day for their clients.

Second, why is it that the music artists themselves are so against file-sharing? Look at how much money they make through live concerts and signature memorabilia! They can believe those utter lies about copyrights construed by the RIAA and the US government if they want to, but here’s a fact:

Most people will probably buy the artists new CD for the cover and the content of anything but the music on the CD, if they really had a reason to buy a CD.

Some of my friends have bought all of T.A. Shakur’s CD’s, but not for the music on that little plastic thing called a compact disk! They’ll buy it for anything but the music on the CD, like the photos, lyrics, and personal quotes of Tupac Amaru Shakur.

And finally, since when did music have a price upon it? I mean, do you pay for listening to the radio (unless you have satellite radio)?

If music should have a price, it should only be for that little plastic thing called a compact disk, not for the music that you listen to, and should have a right to listen to.

So, in that case, screw the so-called “record industry”! Music is not an object!