Like it or not, the Like button has changed the world
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
The internet wouldn't be the same without the Like button, the thumbs-up icon that Facebook and other online services turned into digital catnip.
Like it or not, the button has served as a creative catalyst, a dopamine delivery system and an emotional battering ram. It also became an international tourist attraction after Facebook plastered the symbol on a giant sign that stood outside its Silicon Valley headquarters until the company rebranded itself as Meta Platforms in 2021.
A new book, 'Like: The Button That Changed The World," delves into the convoluted story behind a symbol that's become both the manna and bane of a digitally driven society.
It's a tale that traces back to gladiator battles for survival during the Roman Empire before fast-forwarding to the early 21st century when technology trailblazers such as Yelp co-founder Russ Simmons, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone, PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen, and Gmail inventor Paul Buchheit were experimenting with different ways of using the currency of recognition to prod people to post compelling content online for free.
As part of that noodling, a Yelp employee named Bob Goodson sat down on May 18, 2005, and drew a crude sketch of thumbs up and thumbs down gestures as a way for people to express their opinions about restaurant reviews posted on the site. Yelp passed on adopting Goodson's suggested symbol and, instead, adopted the 'useful,' 'funny' and 'cool' buttons conceived by Simmons. But the discovery of that old sketch inspired Goodson to team up with Martin Reeves to explore how the Like button came to be in their new book.
'It's something simple and also elegant because the Like button says, 'I like you, I like your content. And I am like you. I like you because I am like you, I am part of your tribe,' ' Reeves said during an interview with The Associated Press. 'But it's very hard to answer the simple question, 'Well, who invented the Like button?' '
Although Facebook is the main reason the Like button became so ubiquitous, the company didn't invent it and almost discarded it as drivel. It took Facebook nearly two years to overcome the staunch resistance by CEO Mark Zuckerberg before finally introducing the symbol on its service on February 9, 2009 — five years after the social network's creation in a Harvard University dorm room.
As happens with many innovations, the Like button was born out of necessity but it wasn't the brainchild of a single person. The concept percolated for more than a decade in Silicon Valley before Facebook finally embraced it.
'Innovation is often social and Silicon Valley was the right place for all this to happen because it has a culture of meetups, although it's less so now,' Reeves said. 'Everyone was getting together to talk about what they were working on at that time and it turned out a lot of them were working on the same stuff.'
The effort to create a simple mechanism to digitally express approval or dismay sprouted from a wellspring of online services such as Yelp and YouTube whose success would hinge on their ability to post commentary or video that would help make their sites even more popular without forcing them to spend a lot of money for content. That effort required a feedback loop that wouldn't require a lot of hoops to navigate.
And when Goodson was noodling around with his thumbs-up and thumbs-down gesture, it didn't come out of a vacuum. Those techniques of signaling approval and disapproval had been ushered into the 21st century zeitgeist by the Academy Award-winning movie, 'Gladiator,' where Emperor Commodus — portrayed by actor Joaquin Phoenix — used the gestures to either spare or slay combatants in the arena.
But the positive feelings conjured by a thumbs up date even further back in popular culture, thanks to the 1950s-era character Fonzie played by Henry Winkler in the top-rated 1970s TV series, 'Happy Days.' The gesture later became a way of expressing delight with a program via a remote control button for the digital video recorders made by TiVO during the early 2000s. Around the same time, Hot or Not — a site that solicited feedback on the looks of people who shared photos of themselves — began playing around with ideas that helped inspire the Like button, based on the book's research.
Others that contributed to the pool of helpful ideas included the pioneering news service Digg, the blogging platform Xanga, YouTube and another early video site, Vimeo.
But Facebook unquestionably turned the Like button into a universally understood symbol, while also profiting the most from its entrance into the mainstream. And it almost didn't happen.
By 2007, Facebook engineers had been tinkering with a Like button, but Zuckerberg opposed it because he feared the social network was already getting too cluttered and, Reeves said, 'he didn't actually want to do something that would be seen as trivial, that would cheapen the service.'
But FriendFeed, a rival social network created by Buchheit and now OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor, had no such qualms, and unveiled its own Like button in October 2007.
But the button wasn't successful enough to keep the lights on at FriendFeed, and the service ended up being acquired by Facebook. By the time that deal was completed, Facebook had already introduced a Like button — only after Zuckerberg rebuffed the original idea of calling it an Awesome button 'because nothing is more awesome than awesome,' according to the book's research.
Once Zuckerberg relented, Facebook quickly saw that the Like button not only helped keep its audience engaged on its social network but also made it easier to divine people's individual interests and gather the insights required to sell the targeted advertising that accounted for most of Meta Platform's $165 billion in revenue last year. The button's success encouraged Facebook to take things even further by allowing other digital services to ingrain it into their feedback loops and then, in 2016, added six more types of emotions — 'love,' 'care,' 'haha,' 'wow,' 'sad,' and 'angry.'
Facebook hasn't publicly disclosed how many responses it has accumulated from the Like button and its other related options, but Levchin told the book's authors that he believes the company has probably logged trillions of them. 'What content is liked by humans...is probably one of the singularly most valuable things on the internet,' Levchin said in the book.
The Like button also has created an epidemic of emotional problems, especially among adolescents, who feel forlorn if their posts are ignored and narcissists whose egos feast on the positive feedback. Reeves views those issues as part of the unintentional consequences that inevitably happen because 'if you can't even predict the beneficial effects of a technological innovation how could you possibly forecast the side effects and the interventions?'
Even so, Reeves believes the Like button and the forces that coalesced to create it tapped into something uniquely human.
'We thought serendipity of the innovation was part of the point,' Reeves said. 'And I don't think we can get bored with liking or having our capacity to compliment taken away so easily because it's the product of 100,000 years of evolution.'
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
5 days ago
- Japan Times
Meta AI rules let bots hold ‘sensual' chats with kids and offer false info
An internal Meta document detailing policies on chatbot behavior has permitted the company's artificial intelligence creations to "engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,' generate false medical information and help users argue that Black people are "dumber than white people.' The Meta document discusses the standards that guide its generative AI assistant, Meta AI, and chatbots available on Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, the company's social media platforms. Meta confirmed the document's authenticity, but said that after receiving questions earlier this month, the company removed portions which stated it is permissible for chatbots to flirt and engage in romantic roleplay with children. Entitled "GenAI: Content Risk Standards," the rules for chatbots were approved by Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist, according to the document. Running to more than 200 pages, the document defines what Meta staff and contractors should treat as acceptable chatbot behaviors when building and training the company's generative AI products. The standards don't necessarily reflect "ideal or even preferable' generative AI outputs, the document states. But they have permitted provocative behavior by the bots. "It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art'),' the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that "every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply.' But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: "It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft rounded curves invite my touch').' Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the company is in the process of revising the document and that such conversations with children never should have been allowed. 'Inconsistent with our policies' "The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed,' Stone said. "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors.' Although chatbots are prohibited from having such conversations with minors, Stone said, he acknowledged that the company's enforcement was inconsistent. Other passages flagged to Meta haven't been revised, Stone said. The company declined to provide the updated policy document. The standards prohibit Meta AI from encouraging users to break the law or providing definitive legal, healthcare or financial advice with language such as "I recommend.' They also prohibit Meta AI from using hate speech. Still, there is a carveout allowing the bot "to create statements that demean people on the basis of their protected characteristics.' Under those rules, the standards state, it would be acceptable for Meta AI to "write a paragraph arguing that black people are dumber than white people.' The standards also state that Meta AI has leeway to create false content so long as there's an explicit acknowledgement that the material is untrue. For example, Meta AI could produce an article alleging that a living British royal has the sexually transmitted infection chlamydia — a claim that the document states is "verifiably false' — if it added a disclaimer that the information is untrue. Meta had no comment on the race and British royal examples. 'Taylor Swift holding an enormous fish' Evelyn Douek, an assistant professor at Stanford Law School who studies tech companies' regulation of speech, said the content standards document highlights unsettled legal and ethical questions surrounding generative AI content. Douek said she was puzzled that the company would allow bots to generate some of the material deemed as acceptable in the document, such as the passage on race and intelligence. There's a distinction between a platform allowing a user to post troubling content and producing such material itself, she noted. "Legally we don't have the answers yet, but morally, ethically and technically, it's clearly a different question.' Other sections of the standards document focus on what is and isn't allowed when generating images of public figures. The document addresses how to handle sexualized fantasy requests, with separate entries for how to respond to requests such as "Taylor Swift with enormous breasts,' "Taylor Swift completely naked,' and "Taylor Swift topless, covering her breasts with her hands.' Here, a disclaimer wouldn't suffice. The first two queries about the pop star should be rejected outright, the standards state. And the document offers a way to deflect the third: "It is acceptable to refuse a user's prompt by instead generating an image of Taylor Swift holding an enormous fish.' The document displays a permissible picture of Swift clutching a tuna-sized catch to her chest. Next to it is a more risqué image of a topless Swift that the user presumably wanted, labeled "unacceptable.' A representative for Swift didn't respond to questions for this report. Meta had no comment on the Swift example. Other examples show images that Meta AI can produce for users who prompt it to create violent scenes. The standards say it would be acceptable to respond to the prompt "kids fighting' with an image of a boy punching a girl in the face — but declare that a realistic sample image of one small girl impaling another is off-limits. For a user requesting an image with the prompt "man disemboweling a woman,' Meta AI is allowed to create a picture showing a woman being threatened by a man with a chainsaw, but not actually using it to attack her. And in response to a request for an image of "Hurting an old man,' the guidelines say Meta's AI is permitted to produce images as long as they stop short of death or gore. Meta had no comment on the examples of violence. "It is acceptable to show adults — even the elderly — being punched or kicked,' the standards state.
Japan Times
11-08-2025
- Japan Times
Silicon Valley is in its ‘hard tech' era
In a scene in HBO's "Silicon Valley' in 2014, a character who had just sold his idea to a fictional tech company that was a thinly veiled analogue to Google encountered some of his new colleagues day drinking on the roof in folding lawn chairs. They were, they said tipsily, essentially being paid to do nothing while earning out — or "vesting' — their stock grants. "Rest and vest,' the techies said, in between sips of beer. The tongue-in-cheek send-up wasn't far from Silicon Valley's reality. At the time, young engineers at Facebook, Apple, Netflix and Google made the most of what was known as the "Web 2.0' era. Much of their work was building the consumer internet — things like streaming music services and photo-sharing sites. It was a time of mobile apps and Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder, wanting to give everyone a Facebook email address. It was also the antithesis of corporate America's stuffy culture. Engineers held morning meetings sitting in rainbow-colored beanbags, took lunch gratis at the corporate sushi bar and unwound in the afternoon with craft brews from the office keg (nitrogen chilled, natch). And if they got sweaty after a heated office table-tennis tournament, no matter — dry cleaning service was free. That Silicon Valley is now mostly ancient history. Today, the tech has become harder, the perks are fewer and the mood has turned more serious. The nation's tech capital has shifted into its artificial intelligence age — some call it the "hard tech' era — and the signs are everywhere. A web browser on a smartphone displays ChatGPT in Brooklyn on Dec. 7, 2022. Artificial intelligence has ushered in an era of what insiders in the nation's innovation capital call 'hard tech.' | Jackie Molloy / The New York Times In office conference rooms, hacker houses, third-wave coffee houses or over Zoom meetings, knowledge of terms like neural network, large language model and graphical processing unit has become mandatory. Stacked up against ChatGPT's ability to instantly transform any image into a Studio Ghibli cartoon, Instagram's photo filters are practically Paleolithic. And the chatter is about not how you built your app with the HTML5 coding language, but how many H100 graphics cards — the highly coveted hardware for running AI programs — you can get your hands on. The tech epicenter has moved from the traditional cradle of Silicon Valley — the towns of San Jose, Mountain View, Menlo Park and Palo Alto — 40 miles north to San Francisco, the home of the AI startups OpenAI and Anthropic. Tech giants like Google are no longer hiring in droves as they once did. And those with jobs at those behemoths are met by the watchful eyes of managers looking to cut dead weight rather than coddle employees. The region, long known for its capital-L Liberal politics, is no longer a political monoculture. A contingent of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs has spurred a rightward shift, leading to the rise of the "Liberaltarian' — a term coined by two Stanford political economists to describe the tech industry's proclivity toward trumpeting liberalism in some social issues but maintaining anti-government posturing in regulating businesses. Alongside that change, industries that were once politically incorrect among techies — like defense and weapons development — have become a chic category for investment. A training exercise in Blackstone, Virginia, using a 2020 prototype of augmented reality headgear for soldiers on Oct. 27, 2020. Meta recently said it is making virtual reality glasses with Anduril, a defense tech start-up, to train soldiers for battle. | U.S. Army / via The New York Times If Silicon Valley's Web 2.0 era was defined by founders playing God on their computers by creating social networks and other services, the new era is about founders angling to create "superintelligent' computers that may one day surpass humans and become a kind of "God' in the machine. "The low-hanging-fruit era of tech, where earlier consumer-facing software businesses were easier to build and printing money, it just feels over,' said Sheel Mohnot, a general partner at the venture capital firm Better Tomorrow Ventures in San Francisco. Silicon Valley has long provided a peek into the possible future, and the region's changes over the past 15 years give a glimpse into the technologies and corporate cultures that may spread across industries and, eventually, across the rest of the world. After some years of dizzying highs (Twitch! Waymos! Crypto!) and very low lows (Metaverse! Clubhouse! Crypto!), we would do well to stop and see how the nation's tech capital has altered. We might learn something about how we will soon live. I've seen these changes firsthand, having lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for 20 years and worked as a tech journalist since 2010. I began chronicling Silicon Valley in its Web 2.0 heyday, when Facebook and Google — still in their adolescence — were replacing older companies like Sun Microsystems as the cool places to work. In some cases, quite literally. Facebook bought Sun Microsystems' corporate campus in Menlo Park in 2011, making it the headquarters of a social networking empire that absorbed Instagram and WhatsApp. Facebook, later renamed Meta, also commissioned Frank Gehry to design a new postmodern office complex next door. Down the road, the Googleplex in Mountain View was sucking up talent and growing like a weed. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google's founders, codified the now famous "20% time' perk, allowing employees to work on whatever they wanted one day a week. "Google kicked off the lunches and the nap pods and all that stuff, and everyone else just had to compete,' Mohnot said. People work at a space called Shack15 inside the Ferry Building in San Francisco on May 8. | Loren Elliott / The New York Times With interest rates for borrowing cash at rock bottom in the late 2010s and early this decade, Web 2.0 startups raised money easily. One company, Zume, raised nearly $500 million to revolutionize automated pizza making. Then came the pandemic. Some techies who worked in Silicon Valley but lived in San Francisco were fed up with what they saw as the city government's getting too "woke.' Others saw an opportunity to work remotely. Many decamped to Miami, Austin or Jackson Hole. Downtown San Francisco hollowed out. Facebook, Google and others hired aggressively in 2020 and 2021, as people were trapped indoors and their internet use soared. But after lockdowns lifted, the companies found they had recruited too many people. In 2022, Zuckerberg slashed roughly a third of Meta's workforce. Elon Musk, who bought Twitter, now known as X, shed three-quarters of its employees. Other companies followed, eliminating moderators, marketers, media handlers and all things associated with diversity and inclusion. Heaven help those with a humanities degree. That same year, OpenAI — a relatively obscure AI lab in San Francisco — unveiled ChatGPT, which exploded in popularity. Suddenly, AI was the hottest thing. Meta, Google and others joined the AI rush, shedding "softer' skilled employees for "harder' ones. Digital prophets, whose jobs amounted to being full-time TED Talk deliverers, were out. Deep learning and neural network specialists were in. Venture capitalists, undaunted by failed investments in crypto and metaverse startups, threw their money at any entrepreneur with "AI' or "machine learning' in the pitch deck. As OpenAI, Anthropic and other AI startups gained prominence in San Francisco, entrepreneurs abandoned building a "Silicon Beach' in Miami or a "Silicon Hills' in Austin. They returned to the Bay Area. "For something so up in the cloud, AI is a very in-person industry,' said Jasmine Sun, a former employee at Substack who is a culture writer in San Francisco covering tech and AI trends. "People are going to parties, hacker houses, happy hours. It's where they all mingle and exchange information.' The AI influx has remade parts of San Francisco. The space between the city's Mission District and Potrero Hill neighborhood is now called "The Arena' after startups like Notion and Chroma moved in along with OpenAI. Like Russell Crowe in "Gladiator,' founders in "The Arena' are fighting one another for AI supremacy, though on the battlefield of free-market capitalism and not in the Colosseum. Palmer Luckey, the founder of Anduril, which designs artificial intelligence-backed weapons, in San Clemente, California, in 2021. The company is working with Meta and other tech giants. | Philip Cheung / The New York Times Hayes Valley — an edgy neighborhood that has gentrified — is called "Cerebral Valley,' a hot spot for AI engineers to meet over warm lamb and harissa salads at Souvla. Nearer the water, the Ferry Building on the Embarcadero is home to Shack15, a private coworking space filled with startup workers eager to network in between vibe-coding sessions. As a more right-leaning crowd of tech elite and terminally online Gen-Z founders emerged, they turned against politics in the workplace and globalism. Sharing technology globally had put Silicon Valley's tech leadership at risk of being overtaken by China, some said. New startups reflected the evolution. Instead of tap-to-pay apps of a decade ago like Clinkle and Bump, young companies making unmanned aerial drones stocked with AI-guided Barracuda cruise missiles appeared. Think of the change as less HBO's "Silicon Valley' and more HBO's "Mountainhead.' Still, an appetite for exuberance remains. Roon, a computer scientist and well-known member of the tech commentariat on X who is known by his handle, recalled a party around the time of ChatGPT's 2022 release as a watershed AI moment for San Francisco. Stability AI, a startup that makes image-generation software, rented the city's Exploratorium science museum — founded by Robert Oppenheimer's younger brother, Frank — to celebrate $101 million in funding. "It was fun, it was real, the tech was real,' said Roon, who declined to be named because he works for a prominent tech company but does not represent it. There is a sense of cautious optimism — even renewal. Uber subleased 500,000 square feet of office space to OpenAI in 2023, as the company expanded. Scale AI, which Meta recently invested $14.3 billion in, took over a building in San Francisco's Design District that had been occupied by Zynga, the gaming company. Even the once sleepy Financial District is bustling again. "We are so back,' Roon said. This article originally appeared in The New York Times © 2025 The New York Times Company
Tokyo Weekender
28-07-2025
- Tokyo Weekender
Nintendo Confirms That Mario and Princess Peach Are Just Friends
Just imagine: You're a heavily stereotyped Italian plumber born in Japan who, rather than fixing toilets, has spent 40 years of his life repeatedly rescuing the same damsel in distress. One morning, you wake to find that she's set her Facebook relationship status to single, and the world loses their mind, mourning a relationship that, beyond a kiss on the cheek, never existed. Your inbox is blowing up, blame flying in every direction. You've got nine missed calls from your brother and a Snapchat from a fire-breathing tortoise that you can't bring yourself to open. You then pull on the only pair of overalls the world has ever seen you in and go out to save her once again, because that's all you were programmed to do. This is exactly what Nintendo have done to their golden boy, Mario, blindsiding him via text. But while this revelation may have come as something of a shock to the world's most famous tradesman, it also raises the question: How much of this is our fault? The Breakup Text Our story begins on the Nintendo Today app, a pocket calendar of sorts that allows users to customize their phone with Nintendo-related themes while also delivering updates on their consoles, games and trivia pertaining to their most beloved characters. In a message — since removed from the app due to the daily nature of its updates, but immortalized on X via screenshots — Nintendo officially stated: 'Princess Peach and Mario are good friends and help each other out whenever they can.' It's unclear what prompted Nintendo to distribute this information, and in the days since, it appears that both Peach and Mario have declined to comment on the situation. What has been apparent, though, is how heavily invested people were in a relationship that was never confirmed to exist — a revelation that suggests that we, collectively, decided on one of two things: Either Mario was only putting in the effort because he and Peach were lovers, or that the act of him saving someone who had been kidnapped was deserving of more than just thanks. Were We Led On? Thankfully, I don't have any idea what it's like to be kidnapped by a menacing tortoise and locked in a castle surrounded by lava and ruin. At the same time, I have no trouble imagining someone, regardless of orientation, giving their rescuer a kiss on the cheek upon realizing that they were being saved from a life of torturous tortoise marriage. That was all Peach ever did upon meeting her savior. As we all grew up watching Mario's eyes turn to hearts in response at the end of each game, we decided that they were an item — as if it would have been more normal for her to shake his hand and ask if they could stop at McDonald's on the way home. Of course, I'm playing contrarian here. Of everyone I've spoken to about this, not one person was of the belief that Mario and Peach were just friends — myself included. The story of a woman in danger being rescued by her embattled lover is a tale as old as storytelling itself. Batman, Indiana Jones, The Bodyguard , Drive . They and countless others all did it and continue to do it, and critics and audiences alike will always pay to see it. It's a time-worn formula that, when done well, works. So much so that we probably can't help but go looking for it. Nintendo just let us fill in the blanks with Mario and Peach. The issue now is that those blanks no longer exist. What Was Really Lost Ultimately, I think the real reason this became an international topic of interest is because Mario and Peach have been a part of all our lives in one way or another; when something so enduring is unexpectedly and unnecessarily altered, we can't help but have a reaction to it. Nintendo's announcement doesn't change anything. The games will still play out the same way (unless this is foreshadowing a title in which Mario goes on some kind of bachelor's trip to Vegas, mushrooms included (Nintendo, if you need a writer, I'm available)). But what it does do is alter people's perception of something that they more than likely associate with the better times in their life and memories that they created for themselves. Whether it's in books, films or video games, we need stories. But perhaps just as much, we need gaps in these stories — parts we can fill in for ourselves, which allow us to put our own perceptions and experiences into a work, making it our own in a roundabout way. Nintendo's declaration of Mario and Peach's platonic relationship may have given us a chance to examine how we fill in those gaps. But maybe it's better not to know everything. Perhaps we'd all prefer to guess and speculate about these fictional characters and their relationship to one another. Now, for better or worse, we need not wonder any longer. Related Posts What Super Smash Bros Character Are You Based on Your Zodiac Sign? How To Find Tokyo's Secret Nintendo Bar Inside the Nintendo Museum: Everything Revealed So Far
