This is an interesting article, which discusses the potentially corrosive impact of the “…isn’t-everything-awesomesauce exultation that is a social tic in some corners of Web culture.” It also takes a swipe at the infamous Favourite or Like button, with its implicit censorship of dissent or disapproval, its insistence on presenting you and me as Liking Things who like, well, things.

Curmudgeons like you and me might as well be members of Al Qaeda or Westboro Baptist Church, which is a broad brush and a half:

At their wound-licking, hater-hatin’ worst, the politics of enthusiasm bespeak the intellectual flaccidity of a victim culture that sees even reasoned critiques as a mean-spirited assault on the believer, rather than an intellectual challenge to his beliefs.  Journal writer Christopher John Farley is worth quoting again: dodging the argument by smearing the critic, the term “hater” tars “all criticism—no matter the merits—as the product of hateful minds.” No matter the merits.

Which is really a good point. Why should I have to remain silent if I disapprove or disagree with you? Is the modern man so insecure and thin-skinned that he must be agreed with and approved of in all interactions?

The problem with all our online interactions is that sooner or later some jackass will attempt to monetise them. And that means forcing us to make an arbitrary decision to dis/like even when its Coke/Pepsi as opposed to apples/oranges.

Like buttons create a nice easy to understand metric. But as author Mark Diery says:

…what we like or dislike is rarely half as mind-opening as why we did or didn’t.

And what we neither dislike nor like, but both like and dislike—where’s the button for that?—or are simply fascinated by, is more enlightening still.

This is an interesting article, which discusses the potentially corrosive impact of the “…isn’t-everything-awesomesauce exultation that is a social tic in some corners of Web culture.” It also takes a swipe at the infamous Favourite or Like button, with its implicit censorship of dissent or disapproval, its insistence on presenting you and me as Liking Things who like, well, things. Curmudgeons like you and me might as well be members of Al Qaeda or Westboro Baptist Church, which is a broad brush and a half:

At their wound-licking, hater-hatin’ worst, the politics of enthusiasm bespeak the intellectual flaccidity of a victim culture that sees even reasoned critiques as a mean-spirited assault on the believer, rather than an intellectual challenge to his beliefs.  Journal writer Christopher John Farley is worth quoting again: dodging the argument by smearing the critic, the term “hater” tars “all criticism—no matter the merits—as the product of hateful minds.” No matter the merits.

Which is really a good point. Why should I have to remain silent if I disapprove or disagree with you? Is the modern man so insecure and thin-skinned that he must be agreed with and approved of in all interactions? The problem with all our online interactions is that sooner or later some jackass will attempt to monetise them. And that means forcing us to make an arbitrary decision to dis/like even when its Coke/Pepsi as opposed to apples/oranges. Like buttons create a nice easy to understand metric. But as author Mark Diery says:

…what we like or dislike is rarely half as mind-opening as why we did or didn’t. And what we neither dislike nor like, but both like and dislike—where’s the button for that?—or are simply fascinated by, is more enlightening still.