The fact that people like to get approval from their peers is a sinister conspiracy? I think it's important for alternative decentralized networks to incorporate these mechanisms that people enjoy.
To me, it doesn't seem that people are using Facebook for anything but the feedback loop; for every business, self employed person, or personality using Facebook to connect to fans, there are dozens of people just looking to get in on the feed to get a taste of that feedback. Look at announcement posts from any entity with a large following; the comments on it will get into the tens of thousands in an hour or two. The comments aren't discussing it, it's people seeing a vein open up for the feedback, and trying to tap it to get some likes or feedback. Reddit seems to have the same issue with the top rated posts on more populated subreddits being nothing but dumb puns that people rush out to be first with; scroll down far enough, and you'll see the exact same pun repeated by others who were too slow to post and missed their chance.
Facebook isn't a communication platform really, it's a steady drip of endorphins as you can repeatedly live out your 15 minutes of fame over and over again, all while advertisers throw ads at you. Messenger is just a means to keep you in the platform.
The point of my banal rant is that the idea of alternative networks has been bandied around since everyone's mom and dad got a facebook account, but every time it's addressed, it's always about feature parity and improvements instead of acknowledging that Facebook currently is best situated to feed that need for acknowledgement. Trying to fight on features, on policy, and so on is pointless because that's not why people are using Facebook. We saw how Twitter and Instagram started to steal Facebook users because of a more efficient means of providing the same feedback for users. Wider audience, less effort, and Facebook took notice, copying features directly from both platforms.
It won't be just incorporating it, it will be ensuring that it's a better, faster, more efficient system for giving that gratification.
But there is still no "dislike". The closest thing would be "sad" or "angry". And of course, it still has the same problem as "like": When someone presses "like" on coverage of the terrorist attack, does that mean that they liked the terrorist attack, or the particular way it was covered by the media?
This helps their automated sentiment analysis systems to classify content, and also helps surface a particular balance of content to you that Facebook deems appropriate (e.g. not posts that are likely to make you sad or angry at the top of the fold).
The reason negative reactions are absent is because they don't want to pit people against each other. Everyone can have their own corner of the sandbox, and despite the common derision of today's 'filter bubble', I don't think when they plan on serving advertisements to billions of very different people with pre-existing allegiances, opinions, and beliefs, they could realistically afford to do otherwise.
It's more about facebook collecting insight on your state of mind that they could not guess or find out otherwise than providing alternative to the like button.
Had you been part of reddit, flickr, imgur or any other community medium you could have done the same.
Photography books are great, I've read a few, but they don't give you feedback. Spending time alone in the mountains isn't a practical option for most of us.
This is a core feature of any educational system that has arisen across any culture anywhere in the world. Instant gratification does the opposite. This link might help in understanding the point I am trying to make - https://www.khanacademy.org/talks-and-interviews/conversatio...