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?!