Hi, Everyone –
I’m happy to say that we ha

0 Comments on August 13th Stream as of 1/1/1900

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

72. It’s, Like, So Confusing

2 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: Jenny Levine, on 8/13/2010
Blog: The Shifted Librarian (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  Add a tag

Following up on last week’s post about how Facebook is changing the meaning of “like” online, I’ve been noticing more disconcerting behavior on Target’s Facebook page.

Until yesterday, Target hadn’t posted anything to its wall since July 26th. It wasn’t clear if they were building a strategy internally, but the new post makes it obvious that they’ve decided to ride out the storm by ignoring it and letting their customers duke it out on their wall. The new post links to specials for college students and makes absolutely no reference to the controversy. As of this morning, there are 303 comments on that post and 367 people “like” it.

Target clearly isn’t going to mention the issues, respond, or engage in a conversation on Facebook. Interesting strategy, and we’ll see how it plays out. But as I’m watching this case study develop, some themes are emerging and raising some problematic flags.

As one might expect after what seems like an eternity online, the commenters are no longer mostly people upset with Target’s actions. And predictably, as seems to happen with so many discussions about politics and homosexuality, the discussion is devolving pretty quickly. Some users are flagging each other for bad behavior, just because they disagree with the person’s opinions. Some are insulting other commenters, and the whole wall is becoming a referendum on a political issue. I haven’t read every comment, but I’m confident Godwin’s Law is proven there somewhere.

None of this is new behavior to be sure, but has this happened before on such a mainstream company’s page, especially while the company itself is ignoring it? The fact that it’s Target makes for some interesting issues.

For example, if you read a sample of the comments closely, you’ll find a potentially worrisome information literacy problem. If you go back to the beginning of the comments thread on the August 12 post, there are some users whose entire comment consists of, “If you don’t like Target, why do you ‘like’ this page?” or “If you don’t like Target, why did you become a fan of them?”

It’s unclear to me whether these folks realize that users have to like the page in order to comment or if they’re just being snarky about it. Even though these folks had to “like” the page themselves in order to leave their own questioning comments, I’m leaning towards believing that they truly don’t realize that “like” now means “comments enabled.” As David Lee King said on my previous post, “it looks like the ‘Like’ but­ton is really an entrance fee/ticket, or the ‘door’ to the event.…” But there’s a large group of people out there that don’t realize that “like” now has subtext and is loaded with new meanings and requirements. I worry that they truly don’t understand that the boycotters have no choice but to “like” Target if they want to participate in the discussion.

Other commenters honestly can’t seem to understand why someone who is upset with Target would be posting on the company’s wall in the first place. It seems that there’s still a disconnect between “a company’s web presence” and an interactive, community.” Heck, this is true e

2 Comments on It’s, Like, So Confusing, last added: 8/21/2010

Display Comments

Justin Hoenke said, on 8/13/2010 12:51:00 PM

“I was going to erase the names of the com menters in the screen shots, but tech ni cally it’s all pub lic infor ma tion, so why hide it? Do the people leav ing rants and invec tives on the Tar get post/wall truly under stand that those com ments are com pletely public?”

GREAT POINT. Thanks for sharing this Jenny.

No said, on 8/16/2010 6:32:00 AM

> users have to like the page in order to com ment

Ah, I hadn’t realised that in the previous discussion, but then I haven’t tried to comment on a facebook company page, I only talk to friends. Is that true of all company pages? If so that sounds like FB have not thought things through properly.

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

73. When Like Doesn’t Mean Like

11 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: Jenny Levine, on 8/3/2010
Blog: The Shifted Librarian (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  Add a tag

Subtitle: Or, Using Like to Target Target

If you’re watching the Target Facebook page right now, you’re seeing another social media disaster on par with Nestle’s debacle back in March. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion, but it’s another great case study for us about what not to do online.

Hint: don’t set your page to show only your posts first and then abandon it when controversy arises. If you’re not familiar with the current controversy, you can go here to read about Target’s donation to a homophobic gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. Be sure to click on “just others” on Target’s wall to see the angry, former customers and pornographic spam.

I’m sure they’ve spent the last few days bringing in consultants to come up with a strategy for how to deal with this, but it’s surprising that someone hasn’t already said, “We need to at least post *something* on our Facebook page and acknowledge what’s happening.” So far, Target doesn’t seem to be learning from others’ past mistakes, so don’t fall into the same trap if this ever happens to you.

I think that’s the biggest, immediate takeaway for libraries and nonprofits (well, for everyone, really), but personally I’m more fascinated right now by how people have been forced to give the term “like” different meanings in different contexts because of the box Facebook has forced them into, which this situation illustrates so well.

We first saw this type of attempt to subvert the term “is” in Facebook’s early years. Long-time users remember when your status update automatically included the word “is” so you were forced to use adjectives, present progressive tense, or future tense. Nothing could happen in your past unless you were creative in your use of language, which some people went out of their way to be. Others just started ignoring the “is” and writing whatever they wanted. You might also remember the petition many of us “signed” asking Facebook to remove the “is.” It all seems so quaint now, but those two letters went from being a new way to describe ourselves to being too restrictive pretty quickly.

Now we’re running into another limit that the Facebook one-size-fits-all box forces on us — “like.” We’ve all seen, and maybe even written, “dislike” on a friend’s status update when they say they have a cold or something bad has happened. And yet we still go ahead and click on “like” in order to signify some type of solidarity, even though the term is wholly inaccurate. Sometimes we specifically go out of our way to add a comment “I don’t really ‘like’ this” or “liking even though I don’t like.” But we don’t really have any other options, do we?

And even though Mark Zuckerberg has said Facebook might someday add a “dislike” button (which it won’t out of fear users’ “dislike” of companies will drive advertisers away), that wouldn’t really cover it, would it? My range of emotions doesn’t run the gamut from A to B, but instead includes a million shades of grey in between, just as I don’t always talk solely in the

11 Comments on When Like Doesn’t Mean Like, last added: 8/5/2010

Display Comments

david lee king said, on 8/3/2010 7:42:00 AM

Interesting… it looks like the “Like” button is really an entrance fee/ticket, or the “door” to the event — it’s not really “liking” anything at all. At least in this instance, anyway. Probably in many instances, for that matter.

jessamyn said, on 8/3/2010 7:56:00 AM

Well said. Jaron Lanier’s point about the boxes that we type in somewhat determining what exactly we type into them has kept me thinking about this.

jenny said, on 8/3/2010 9:37:00 AM

Jessamyn, it’s *really* stuck with me because of ALA Connect. I want to find deeper ways for ALA members to customize their profiles however they want so that we’re not all in the same box. Unfortunately, there’s so much we want to do with the site that it will probably be next year before I can start exploring the best way to make that happen, but I’d love suggestions from anyone else thinking about this stuff. It’s also why I haven’t wanted to add the Facebook “like” button to Connect or ALA website pages.

jenny said, on 8/3/2010 9:43:00 AM

David, that’s an interesting way to look at it, especially when I consider that “comment” has worked just fine on blogs for a decade. At this rate, measuring “like” will be meaningless.

Michael Golrick said, on 8/3/2010 10:20:00 AM

All I am going to say is: “Like!” [As in the thoughtful, insightful way you presented the issue and your thoughts.”]

ranti said, on 8/5/2010 6:11:00 AM

May there should be buttons that said “FTW”, “Okay”, “Meh”, “WTF”?

Heidi said, on 8/5/2010 7:21:00 AM

I think the best alternative to the “like” button would be a “follow” button.

Val said, on 8/5/2010 8:05:00 AM

“Like” Thank you for so eloquently putting into words what I’ve been thinking about lately.

janet said, on 8/5/2010 9:38:00 AM

Seeking a non-commital word to signify the action you took with regard to the Target page isn’t easy. Maybe “bookmarked” or “noted” or “found” or “identified” or “registered” would do. But it’s clear that something other than “like” is needed for the non-human entities found on Facebook. (I rather like “noted” myself. It can mean as little as that you saw the thing,and then moved on. But maybe I like it because of the boss I once had who used the term to great effect)

Beth Gallaway said, on 8/5/2010 11:10:00 AM

Like also dumbs down, and diminishes conversation. It’s really easy to hit that button, but so much more meaningful to respond with a comment or story of your own.

Jeremy said, on 8/5/2010 6:11:00 PM

I think Facebook should go back to users becoming “a fan of” events and organizations rather than “liking” those events or organizations. (The English language is becoming corrupted enough, with “like” being thrown in all the time–there’s no need to have Facebook doing the same thing.) When people were “fans” or not, there was far less confusion, IMO. And to require “liking” something OR even becoming a fan of it simply in order to say one dislikes it is ridiculous.

Add a Comment

More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag

74. August 2nd Stream

0 Comments | Previous | Top | Next

By: Jenny Levine, on 8/2/2010
Blog: The Shifted Librarian (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:  Add a tag

	Shared . Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/shiftedlibrarian/sites/theshiftedlibrarian.com/html/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/lifestream/themes/default/templates/photo.inc.php on line 2
	Posted dmlcentral: Almost “criminally irresponsible” to hoard academic knowledge in the digital age — interesting article/comments http://bit.ly/a3tO3n.
	@kimberlyhirsh we need a higher ratio of ludologists to luddites in the profession :-p [shifted]
	Posted patkiernan: Pennsylvania repair crew finds touching message from 1930s construction crew grateful for their jobs. http://pape.rs/ajdDrQ.
	@level250geek I’d love your feedback about how to make it easier to navigate (jlevine [at] ala.org) [shifted]
	Posted ericrumsey: RT @kariek Is the App the Future of the Book? Bob Stein, at “if:book” thinks so #iPad — http://bit.ly/c4XMaO.
0 Comments on August 2nd Stream as of 1/1/1900 Add a Comment More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag 75. July 31st Stream 0 Comments | Previous | Top | By: Jenny Levine, on 7/31/2010 Blog: The Shifted Librarian (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap) JacketFlap tags:  Lifestream, Add a tag Posted marianliz: “It is not your turn in any of your active games” = sign that you are not playing enough games #onlinescrabbleaddict #felloffthewagon. @kgs there are a lot of books in worldcat #oclcleaks [shifted] Posted ALA_TechSource: RT: GameStop Acquires Social Gaming Site Kongregate http://tcrn.ch/aLWAq8. Posted michaelreuter: Town Plans Foursquare ‘Foxhunt’ http://yigg.it/8wvdm @yigg. Posted digiphile: “Too much sunlight creates skin cancer”-@zephoria. What are the unintended consequences of publicy? http://j.mp/cgtJsy #sn10. RT @anildash: Could we use check-in data to make places more accessible via “Ability Maps”? http://2.dashes.com/9R1daE [shifted] 0 Comments on July 31st Stream as of 1/1/1900 Add a Comment More from this Blog | Email This | Add a Tag View Next 25 Posts © 2017 Jacketflap.com                         About Us   FAQ   Advertise on JacketFlap   About our Widgets program for Publishers   Privacy   Terms