[nammi]

People expect that companies pay for their ads to be presented. A big reason for buying likes seems to be deceiving people into believing the posts aren't ads. I'd say it's similar to "sponsored content" that doesn't disclose the fact that it's sponsored

[ryandrake]

I think, at this point it is safe to assume that on any platform where individual content can be promoted via a crowdsourced upvote, including star ratings and "likes", much of what rises to the top is manipulated in some way, often sponsored (paid for) by a commercial interest. This includes FB posts and Amazon reviews, but also comments on reddit and even HN comments and articles. I would love to see internal reports from these companies about what % of each platform's accounts and/or activity they estimate to be automated, botted, farmed, fraudulent, etc. but for obvious reasons nobody seems to be willing to regularly publish this information!

[vonmoltke]

Not percentages, but actual numbers of reports and suspicious account challenges: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/platform-manipulation.ht...

[ryandrake]

I stand corrected. Great job, Twitter!

[wolco]

People buy likes because of price and reach. If the price of ads and the reach were similiar this wouldn't exist.

Who thought like would be a good gauge without dislke is beyond me. Dislike would provide a way to display displeasure and drop the value of the orginal like.

[JohnFen]

> Dislike would provide a way to display displeasure and drop the value of the orginal like.

And would double the business of the like factories, because they would expand into doing paid dislikes as well.