Why does TouchGrass avoid public like counts?
TouchGrass avoids public like counts because public scoreboards change how people post. When every post carries a visible number, people start writing for the number, judging themselves by the number, or avoiding posts that might not “perform.” A safe, open social home for real life should not turn ordinary sharing into a contest. TouchGrass can still support social feedback and connection, but it does not need public like counts to rank people’s everyday lives. Removing the public scoreboard is one part of avoiding addictive feeds, engagement traps, and platform lock-in.
Why we chose this
Public like counts seem small. They are only numbers. But numbers become social signals quickly.
A public count can tell people what is popular, what is ignored, what is risky, and what is worth imitating. That can be useful in some public publishing contexts. It can also make everyday social sharing worse.
When a post is about a friend’s album, a local recommendation, a personal update, or a long piece of writing, the public score often becomes noise. People may hesitate to share something sincere because it might receive fewer reactions. Others may chase the format that gets the most visible reward. The product slowly trains everyone to notice the scoreboard.
TouchGrass is designed around friends, circles, profiles, posts worth keeping, and exits. It is not designed around public ranking mechanics. Removing public like counts helps move attention away from performance and back toward context.
How this works on TouchGrass
Today, TouchGrass avoids public like counts. That choice fits with other product decisions: no algorithmic feed designed around engagement, no infinite scroll, no native video treadmill, and no engagement traps built around public performance.
This does not mean TouchGrass is anti-feedback. Social software can still support response, care, recognition, conversation, and discovery. The key distinction is whether feedback becomes a public score attached to a person’s post.
Without public like counts, a profile can feel more like a place and less like a ranking page. A post can be useful, funny, personal, or worth keeping without needing to prove itself through a visible number.
This also supports audience controls. Public, friends, and circles are different contexts. A circle post does not need a public metric. A friends post should not become a popularity test. A public post can stand on its content, not just on a counter beside it.
TouchGrass is also moving in open-web and portability directions. Those directions should not be confused with public scoring.
Worth knowing
Removing public like counts does not remove all social comparison. People can still compare attention, comments, replies, visibility, or social response in other ways.
It also does not make posts private. Audience controls and public metrics are separate product surfaces. A public post is still public if its audience is public. A friends or circle post still carries the usual caveats around screenshots, copying, and recipient misuse.
Open can mean portability, interoperability, and exit doors. It does not require a public like-count scoreboard.
FAQ
Why are public like counts a problem?
They turn social feedback into a visible score. That can push people to perform, compare, imitate high-engagement formats, or avoid posts that matter but may not attract reactions.
Does hiding public counts make everything safer?
No. It helps reduce scoreboard pressure, but safety also depends on audience controls, product defaults, moderation, privacy caveats, and user behavior.
Can public posts still be useful without like counts?
Yes. A public post can be useful because of what it says, recommends, explains, or preserves. It does not need a visible score to matter.
Is this part of the non-addictive design?
Yes. Avoiding public like counts fits with avoiding algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, public scoreboards, and engagement traps.
Keep reading
Read more about no public like counts
Read more about non-addictive social media
See what you can do
Why we chose this
Public like counts seem small. They are only numbers. But numbers become social signals quickly.
A public count can tell people what is popular, what is ignored, what is risky, and what is worth imitating. That can be useful in some public publishing contexts. It can also make everyday social sharing worse.
When a post is about a friend’s album, a local recommendation, a personal update, or a long piece of writing, the public score often becomes noise. People may hesitate to share something sincere because it might receive fewer reactions. Others may chase the format that gets the most visible reward. The product slowly trains everyone to notice the scoreboard.
TouchGrass is designed around friends, circles, profiles, posts worth keeping, and exits. It is not designed around public ranking mechanics. Removing public like counts helps move attention away from performance and back toward context.
How this works on TouchGrass
Today, TouchGrass avoids public like counts. That choice fits with other product decisions: no algorithmic feed designed around engagement, no infinite scroll, no native video treadmill, and no engagement traps built around public performance.
This does not mean TouchGrass is anti-feedback. Social software can still support response, care, recognition, conversation, and discovery. The key distinction is whether feedback becomes a public score attached to a person’s post.
Without public like counts, a profile can feel more like a place and less like a ranking page. A post can be useful, funny, personal, or worth keeping without needing to prove itself through a visible number.
This also supports audience controls. Public, friends, and circles are different contexts. A circle post does not need a public metric. A friends post should not become a popularity test. A public post can stand on its content, not just on a counter beside it.
TouchGrass is also moving in open-web and portability directions. Those directions should not be confused with public scoring.
Worth knowing
Removing public like counts does not remove all social comparison. People can still compare attention, comments, replies, visibility, or social response in other ways.
It also does not make posts private. Audience controls and public metrics are separate product surfaces. A public post is still public if its audience is public. A friends or circle post still carries the usual caveats around screenshots, copying, and recipient misuse.
Open can mean portability, interoperability, and exit doors. It does not require a public like-count scoreboard.
FAQ
Why are public like counts a problem?
They turn social feedback into a visible score. That can push people to perform, compare, imitate high-engagement formats, or avoid posts that matter but may not attract reactions.
Does hiding public counts make everything safer?
No. It helps reduce scoreboard pressure, but safety also depends on audience controls, product defaults, moderation, privacy caveats, and user behavior.
Can public posts still be useful without like counts?
Yes. A public post can be useful because of what it says, recommends, explains, or preserves. It does not need a visible score to matter.
Is this part of the non-addictive design?
Yes. Avoiding public like counts fits with avoiding algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, public scoreboards, and engagement traps.
Keep reading
Read more about no public like counts
Read more about non-addictive social media
See what you can do