On "Liking"

Facebook's decision to create a "like" button seems like one of the most effective tweaks to a social media application, or any piece of new media for that matter. I feel great sympathy for the up-keepers of popular new media applications. To remain the same is to stagnate in an environment where novelty is among the highest virtues. And yet most changes you make, no matter how subtle, tick off the user-base. I imagine that its hard to quantify such things (only the folks at Facebook will know for sure), but adding the "like" button has to be one of the most effective tweaks in terms of its ability to increase interaction on the site, thereby increasing time spent and "personal investment" in the site, thereby increasing ad revenue. The "like" button achieved what all technological innovations aspire to: it became so ingrained in users' behavior, so instinctual, that its virtually invisible. The only push-back was the half-hearted attempt by some users to get a "dislike" button which, smartly, Facebook never delivered.

What is it about "Liking" that works so well? In a sense, it lowers the barrier for interaction. You're not required to have something to say in order to interact with others. Although Facebook has experimented with ways to give users control of their audiences when they post content, the process of creating discrete groups, thinking about which groups you want to see whatever you're posting, and then selecting that group is unwieldy and requires consideration and reflection. Using Facebook, like most real world social interaction, requires spontaneity and impulse. If that flow is interrupted, users might as well click to another site. So users are still stuck with the problem: when I say what I want to say, will some of my friends judge me harshly or misinterpret what I've said? Or there might be a more fundamental problem: what do I really have to say besides: I agree!

Real world interpersonal communication is filled with subtle cues: head-nodding, furrowed brows, smiles, "uh huh"s. These non-verbals and "barely verbals" have no "content" per se but are integral to the process of communication. The speaker knows that they're not putting information into a vacuum and the listener is not called upon to risk judgement or do the work of generating a substantive response. On an interpersonal level, "Liking" something on Facebook essentially replicates this in the online social environment.

Of course, Facebook isn't one-to-one communication. There is a broader (though not too broad) audience for your "like"s. "Liking" forms a visible social net that reflects people's attention and affection. Avatars, names on our friends lists, or photos are adjuncts to the real substance of virtual presence: signs of attention and affection. Those are what prompt much-needed feelings of belonging to a group.

Additionally, "Liking" is a bit like voting for something at a town hall meeting: a semi-public (or "locally public") endorsement that, by virtue of showing that many like-minded people endorse something, is likely to influence an observer, even if that observer is completely passive. In this sense, the "like" button replicates an essential element of offline civic discourse.

So, what else can Facebook do to build on the success of "like"? Perhaps there's some way to address this issue of audience, but in a way that doesn't interrupt the flow of impulse. Somehow, Facebook needs to be able to just sense who we want to see our mundane, half-funny observation or reply to someone else's mundane, half-funny observation. Until then, we'll just have to keep liking.