I also want to say something about this kind of speculation. Journalists like to do this too and all I can say is that's rage baiting. I find it slightly dishonorable. Even if you don't intend it to be, that's not the point. The point is speculation for speculations sake around an ambiguous and benign action.
For this specific reason is exactly what X stopped notifying "like" data. Too many people were chasing after "likes" saying, "so and so liked a thing" when all they intended was to draw attention to the thing.
"like" hasn't actually meant you "like" something for a long time now. Even on Steemit, an upvote does not imply you "like" it.
No one ever said it was a guarantee of anything. He may or may not be secretly buying bitcoin. The fact he liked it could mean he is or it could simply mean he wants it to be seen.... which both reasons are good. Not sure the need for such a long winded reply over something that is good regardless. This isn't the New York Times here where news stories are vetted and re-vetted, it's social media where people speculate on the world's happenings.
0.00 SBD,
0.01 STEEM,
0.01 SP
I don't approve of this kind of speculation. I like speculation, but speculating on a like of a post when that can mean anything is really pointless. Even speculating on the impressions is IMHO dumb. It's that kind of speculation that leads to things like ragebait in the first place. Just planting the seed of rage over a culture shift just to make money off of engagement. Why the long-winded rant? Firstly, thanks for asking. While I believe everyone has the right to do this, I still disagree with the practice on principle and the only thing I can really do about it is say something. For the folks in the back, if someone asks you to speculate or interpret the meaning of a like or an emoji, be skeptical. Be very skeptical.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
0.00 SBD,
0.00 STEEM,
0.82 SP