��

Facebook is building a dislike button, CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a public question-and-answer session on Tuesday. What he actually said is that the company is working on something along the lines of a dislike button, although it won’t be nearly that simple.

“People have asked about the dislike button for many years,” he said, as quoted by Wired. “We’ve finally heard you and we’re working on this and we will deliver .”

Predictably, this sent the tech press into a frenzy. Nothing brings in Facebook likes and shares – the new currency of online media – like a story about, well, Facebook likes and shares. Business Insider led the charge with a typically breathless headline and post: “.”

Pretty much every other publication on the planet scrambled to reap its own share of the social traffic pie.

I dislike being the bearer of bad news, but whatever Facebook is building, it probably won’t be the dislike button its more jaded users have been clamouring for.

Zuckerberg has been teasing us about a dislike button for years – and reaping a wave of free publicity each time – but he has always couched his statements carefully. In December 2014, he flat-out stated that the company that gives people a way to disapprove of one another’s posts. (I explained in some depth at the time .) Rather, he said, Facebook was exploring ways to allow users to convey fuzzy sentiments like surprise, laughter or empathy.

Expressions of empathy

That’s very similar to what he said on Tuesday, when he asserted that “what they really want is . If you’re expressing something sad… it may not feel comfortable to ‘like’ that post, but your friends and people want to be able to express that they understand.”

What that will actually look like remains unclear. A Facebook spokesperson declined to offer specifics on the company’s plans for new buttons beyond what Zuckerberg said. But it almost certainly won’t be as simple as adding a dislike button beside the like button, so that people can upvote and downvote one another’s posts, Reddit-style.

If I had to guess, I’d say the most likely possibility is this: Facebook will give you the option, when you post something, to enable your friends and followers to respond with a button other than “like”, such as “sympathise”, “agree” or, I don’t know, “hug” – but only for that specific post. It’s possible the word “dislike” will be among those options, although I still think that’s unlikely.

If I’m right, then people won’t have the option to “dislike” or even “sympathise” with posts that haven’t been set up by their authors to enable those responses. So you won’t be able to “dislike” your uncle’s polemical political posts unless he’s gone out of his way to allow you to do so.

My colleague Torie Bosch has argued, rather persuasively, that , because its like button has already taken on a more flexible meaning than simple approval. Nonetheless, it makes sense for Facebook to consider some alternatives, because understanding when people are expressing things like sympathy, outrage or laughter rather than approval will help Facebook fine-tune its news-feed algorithms.

More nuanced responses means more data for Facebook to mine and monetise – and if you dislike that, then you are on the wrong social network.

This article was first published on

“Yesterday,” writes Tesla CEO Elon Musk in a , “there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.”

In short, California-based Tesla is opening up its patents to competitors. Like so many of Musk’s ideas, it sounds crazy but might just be brilliant.

Tesla, Musk explains, was founded with the goal of taking electric cars mainstream. At the outset, it filed patents like any other company, because it was worried that bigger car manufacturers would simply copy its technology and drive it out of business. Instead, with a few exceptions, major automakers have continued to ignore alternatives to petrol engines. And Musk has decided that’s even worse.

So instead of protecting its intellectual property, Tesla has pledged that it “will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology”.

Tesla is already collaborating with several car manufacturers, including Mercedes-Benz, on their electric-car efforts. But it has apparently decided that sharing its technology with the world will advance the field faster than a series of bilateral partnerships with established car companies. Just this week, the Mercury News’ Dana Hull notes, to talk about its Supercharger battery-charging technology.

This might seem like a rash move for a company that still faces . It certainly stands in stark contrast to the approach of tech companies like Apple, which are suing their rivals all over the world for infringing on patents like the one it holds for . Some will hail Musk as a hero, while others might dismiss him as a naive idealist when he says that his ultimate goal is .

But Musk isn’t naive, and Tesla isn’t a charity. Rather, he knows that Tesla’s real battle isn’t with other car manufacturers for leadership of today’s niche market for electric cars. It’s the much greater struggle between electric cars and their petrol-powered counterparts.

Viewed in that context, the obstacles to Tesla’s success aren’t the Nissan Leaf and the BMW i3 – they’re the constraints of technology, cost, infrastructure, and customer expectations. The more money is put into electric batteries, the cheaper and more powerful they’ll become. The more electric cars there are on the road, the greater will be the demand for regional and national networks of electric charging stations. And guess what company will stand to benefit the most?

Best of all, if Musk’s gambit works, it could pave the way for forward-thinking CEOs in other fields to take similar steps.

This article first appeared on