Facebook has attempted to account for this by working a large number of other factors into its News Feed algorithm. But to some not-inconsiderable degree, we're left with a system that still equates importance with positivity. And that means that, every time Facebook's one billion global users visit their feeds, they're greeted with a version of the world that is both rosier and less conflicted than the one we actually live in.
It's no secret, for instance, that Facebook's "trending" box prefers the popular to the substantive. (In the understated words of Re/code's Kurt Wagner, "What is important on Facebook ... may be slightly different from what's important to the New York Times.")
"The choice of 'like' as a primary signal in the world's biggest social network has substantive political consequences," sociologist Zeynep Tufekci wrote in an open letter to Facebook's product team posted in August on Medium.
"Facebook helps structure the world's attention - one of the most important, crucial resources of the 21st century. There are no perfect choices, but the trade-offs are real, and involve human costs."
Tufekci has argued, as have some of Facebook's other critics, that this conflation of approval and importance is the one that Facebook really needs to address when it reforms the like button. What we need, she has said, is something like a "+1" or "Important" option - a way to explicitly tell the algorithm what we want to see more of.
Zuckerberg's comments, on the other hand, suggest that the "dislike" or "empathy" button the company is working on will clarify another issue entirely: the difference between liking something because you approve of it and liking something because you want to express support or sympathy. (There's also no indication that the button will let you signal disapproval - ie, "I hate this stupid conspiracy theory" - perhaps because that would open the site up to a world of vicious trolling.)
In all fairness, we don't actually know what form the new button will take. (My Washington Post colleague Brian Fung has suggested buttons that represent a range of alternative reactions, rather like the ones used by Buzzfeed.) And by addressing the social awkwardness of "liking" a sad post, Zuckerberg is getting at the issue that average users appear to care about most.
It's safe to assume, I think, that the majority of Facebook users are not pondering the sociopolitical implications of their posts; in fact, many would doubtless prefer that Facebook remain a feel-good space, an experience "exquisitely attuned to our appetites", to quote the philosopher Matthew Crawford. That's certainly the sort of experience favoured by advertisers.
The problem with such experiences, Crawford says, is that "they can swamp your ordinary way of being in the world". As of this writing, my News Feed is dominated by a friend's wedding pictures. I might like what I'm seeing - but that doesn't mean it's good.
- Caitlin Dewey, Washington Post
Just one more way to speak out while doing nothing
How do you show your disdain for something? Or register your firm agreement with an issue that matters a lot to you?
A few of you will still put pen to paper. Others will call somebody, depending on your proximity to the issue. And others still might take to the streets if the matter warrants public protest or similar.
But these days, more often than not, most will simply resort to a tweet, a Facebook "like", or some other piece of digital ephemera. And then that's it. Case closed. You've done your bit.
Just in case you were feeling constrained by the digital choices on offer, however, Facebook wunderkind Mark Zuckerberg has got something up his sleeve.
He is hoping to bring some nuance to the internet with a new "dislike" button on Facebook.
It's not expected to be called "dislike", as the young multibillionaire says he doesn't want to encourage people to be mean to each other (has he actually been on the internet lately?). Instead, he wants to develop a button to help people "express empathy".
Well, one billion Facebook users are waiting, fingers primed. Zuckerberg has known of the "like" button's limited range for years, but seemingly it's been too tough a nut to crack. Two years ago, a developer let slip that the company was working on a "sympathise" button, but nothing materialised.
Facebook is now trying to catch up, because the social network has changed dramatically since it first crashed on to our screens 11 years ago. No longer just somewhere for its members to post drunken photos, humble brags and cute photos of their family, it is morphing into a political beast.
One look at the site's most talked-about topics from last year - the Scottish referendum and the Gaza conflict - proves what a fight club the behemoth has become. My Facebook feed really wasn't a healthy place to hang out last year. I looked at some of my chums in a whole new light.
And that's just it. By unleashing a "dislike" button into the mix, Zuckerberg is only going to toxify an increasingly fractious atmosphere among "friends".
While people having rows could make the social network more addictive for some, it also fuels another depressing and unhealthy trend: armchair activism, better known as "slacktivism".
I asked you at the beginning of this column how you make your voice heard - properly heard. For all too many, a "dislike button" will offer another illusion of action, and yet it couldn't be further from the real world. All it really offers is just another distraction and the means to shout into a digital echo chamber.
Yesterday, I spoke to one of the impassioned leaders of Femen, the topless feminist protest group currently making headlines after two of their activists stormed the stage of an Islamic conference in Paris. Femen's approach is divisive, for sure. But no one could accuse these women of resting on their laurels.
Ironically, they found out about the event on Facebook after people began voicing their disquiet about some of the speakers.
But instead of reaching for a digital button, they put their phones down and did something about it offline. How many of us can truly say the same?
- Emma Barnett, Daily Telegraph
