Fair enough. However, over time I can see recurring agreements from likes that helps me connect a name with certain positions. There is repetition that helps me making that connection.

I might not see all their comments in my flow and it saves me time to get a general impression in this format.

Many people don't write a lot of small talk and I'm generally in that category as well. If we remove likes then our feeds become full of short responses that have meaning for us but may be noise for others.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Good points. Someone abound just experiment with a client so we can see what actually happens.

Sure, experiments can be interesting.

But suppose we assume that some people out there are addicted to likes, then short comments of agreememt will just be the new form of likes.

That’s a possibility but not a certainty imo

But how do you know that people are addicted to likes in the first place? It sounds like a hypthetical from the start.

It’s quite real

That sounds like the exception though, not the norm.

Human need for acceptance is not an exception.

Sorry, I'm not with you on your train of thoughts. Addiction is a rare phenomenon.

Very good points in this thread! Made me realize I was using likes the same way #[4] does.

- giving them, when no need / no time for an articulated message

- seeing them, to identify users who usually share my POV and sometimes discover great follows

Likes keep discussions light and digestible, only people who actually have something to say usually post.

If the only way to weight in is to post a comment or zap, threads will get spammed AF and boring.

Regarding addiction to likes and need for acceptance, I think I'm with #[9] on this one. It's probably present among most humans, albeit at different levels.

IMHO more widespread but less toxic and less dangerous than gambling addiction. And Nostr being a fair playground with no algo manipulation (for now at least 😬), maybe it's not such a big deal.

Let them have πŸ’œ, let them give πŸ’œ πŸ€™

Very few shakas in this thread πŸ˜‚

πŸ˜‚