Why are you calling these 'fakes'? 

Uh, because they are? Words mean things.

Well, on a technicality a 'like' is a counter in a computer somewhere and the bits to count the 'fake likes' are the same bits used to count the 'real likes'. By the time the number of likes is displayed they are to all intents and purposes indistinguishable and identical in every respect.

The failure is on Instagram in not being able to separate out the fake likes from the real ones before they increment the counter.

I'm a little confused because you argue all likes are the same and then make the distinction between fake and real likes.

It's prior and post accumulation in some counter or for display purposes. So at the moment the like is done it is possible to distinguish between fake and real but after you collapse them into a single counter you no longer can distinguish fake and real.

This is what gives the 'fake likes' their value, that they are then used by Instagram in exactly the same way as real likes. Instagram clearly fails at distinguishing the two, so you really can't fault the users for not being able to do so either. The fact that this service is available and apparently works is a pretty strong bit of evidence that all likes should be distrusted but that's not how it will play out.

But is this just a dumb counter though? Instagram shows the list of people who liked a photo.

Say, if one of my friends has a picture with 5 likes from people I recognize, and another friend has a photo with 100 likes from weirdly-named accounts, I can tell which ones are fake.

real likes = unpaid fake likes = paid

likes are a proxy for consumer interest. kind of how survey's where the respondents are paid to agree to something aren't valid measures of opinion.

I just mean: whole of that 'likes economy' is a scam from top to bottom. You don't become much more unfair for just buying them, because nearly all other ways of getting likes that potentially have positive ROI aren't too far from this.

If an exclusive handbag has many counterfeits made, the counterfeits are still "fake" $BRAND_NAME bags. That doesn't change if the counterfeiters made more bags than the company (as is usually the case).

The amount isn't the issue here, it's the fact that the so-called fake in this case is exactly the same as the real thing, since likes are just integer values.

> likes are just integer values.

Which is obviously untrue. Are digital photos of your child's birthday just a collection of ones and zeroes? No, they are not.

A like is an indication that someone you know is impressed by/is fond of/just generally liked something you posted. Yes, I know, social media is all false, people care too much about internet points, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah. The point is that they do care.

Fake likes are actually an interesting phenomenon. I'm reminded of a real world equivalent, where someone pretended to be a celebrity in Times Square, and tourists there believed it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYU1a0lTTTw

If you look like you are important, people treat you like you are. It's a fascinating psychological phenomenon. Boiling it all down to "integer values" is just silly.

People chose to care, and you define a like in the terms you've stated. But Instagram makes no such claims, neither about the nature of the likes, nor restricts particularly how they can be created.

If anything, the example you give example supports the notion that "fake" likes are just as good as real likes, since pretending to be a celebrity can in fact make you famous.

It seems needlessly obtuse to say that Instagram have never stated that a "like" represents someone liking your photo. That's the reason they called it a "like". If you want to make the argument that Instagram chose a name for something without wanting to attach any meaning to it then good luck to you, but it's not a conversation I'm interested in having.

> nor restricts particularly how they can be created.

Untrue, given that they've cracked down on bots posting automated activity on Instagram:

http://www.businessinsider.com/instagram-cracks-down-on-fake...

>[the fake] is exactly the same as the real thing

So what? It doesn't matter if the counterfiet handbags are good fakes, even indistinguishable. Similarly, if you put counterfeit money in a bank it becomes electronic. The integer values of "fake" and "real" money are completely indistinguishable. But it's still fake money, and when you're caught they'll still take it.

The likes are fake because the thing the integer claims to represent ("people who came across this organically via our site and liked this") is fabricated. Trying to say that it's not fake merely because "someone actually clicked like" is like saying fake product reviews are real because "someone actually filled out and submitted an electronic form."

>The amount isn't the issue here

OP said "as if most of likes were real ones," so obviously they think the amount is [at least part of] the issue.

Instagram makes no claims about the nature of the "likes", nor their meaning on their website.

The only restriction their TOS mentions about "likes" is that they shouldn't be "unwanted" ("aka spam"), there's absolutely nothing about them having to be sincere, permanent, not in exchange for money etc.

What in the world?

A fake like is called fake because the majority of people expect likes to come from users. It's an intuitive definition, and bringing counter types and amounts into it is very much misunderstanding how the word is being used.

Seems like we're heading into semantic argument territory here.

Is it bad that I lose my patience when the argument derails like this and becomes a sort of pissing contest? Brings me to the verge of replying, only to stop myself with the argument that I know better than to enter pissing contests...

Just... what's the point of the argument?!